Rehabilitation of Older Adults with Dementia After Hip Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of postoperative rehabilitation on the outcomes of older adults with dementia who experienced hip fracture. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults with dementia who underwent hip fracture surgery between 2003 and 2011. Participants were categorized as no rehabilitation, complex continuing care (CCC), home-care based rehabilitation (HCR), and inpatient rehabilitation (IPR). MEASUREMENTS: Time to long-term care (LTC) placement, mortality, and risk of repeat hip fracture and falls. RESULTS: Of 11,200 individuals with dementia who experienced a hip fracture during the study period, 4,494 (40.1%) received no rehabilitation, 2,474 (22.1%) were admitted to CCC, 1,157 (10.3%) received HCR, and 3,075 (27.4%) received IPR. HCR and IPR were associated with less risk of LTC admission after discharge from hospital than no rehabilitation. All three forms of rehabilitation were associated with lower risk of mortality than no rehabilitation, with the greatest effect observed with IPR. HCR was associated with a higher risk of falls than no rehabilitation (P=.03); there were no other significant between-group differences in risk of falls or repeat fractures (P>.05). CONCLUSION: Postfracture rehabilitation for older adults with dementia is associated with lower risk of LTC placement and mortality. Improving access to rehabilitation services for this vulnerable population may improve postfracture outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".