MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319136563 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31827ab62a

Incidence of Second Cervical Vertebral Fractures Far Surpassed the Rate Predicted by the Changing Age Distribution and Growth Among Elderly Persons in the United States (2005–2008)

2012· article· en· W2319136563 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie L. Zusman, Alexander C. Ching, Robert A. Hart, Jung U. Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographyIncidence (geometry)PopulationEpidemiologyCohortConfidence intervalGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Nationwide epidemiological cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the incidence of second cervical vertebral (C2) fractures by age and geographical region among the elderly Medicare population and to elucidate if the rate changed in the years 2005 to 2008. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent publications hypothesized that the rate of cervical vertebral fractures may be increasing. To date, there are no published nationwide reports describing the incidence and demographics of these injuries in the elderly US population. METHODS: Incidence of C2 fracture in the years 2005 to 2008 was determined by querying PearlDiver Technologies, Inc. (Warsaw, IN), a commercially available database, using International Classification of Diseases code 805.02. Rates were calculated using the PearlDiver reported person-counts as the numerator and the Center for Medicare and Medicare Services midyear population file as the denominator, and reported per 10,000 person-years (10,000 p-y). The age and geographical distributions of fractures were examined. Variability in rates was analyzed using the mean, standard deviation, 95% confidence intervals, χ tests, and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Although the elderly population increased by 6% between 2005 and 2008, the annual incidence of C2 fracture rose by 21%, from 1.58 to 1.91 per 10,000 p-y, trending upward in a straight-line function (r = 0.999, P = 0.0006). The incidence of fracture varied between age groups; however, an increase was observed in all age groups. Persons aged 65 to 74 years (the youngest age group) experienced the lowest incidence (0.63 in 2005 to 0.71 in 2008), and the rate of increase was the smallest among the age groups examined (13%). Persons aged 85 and older demonstrated the highest incidence (4.36-5.67) and the greatest increase (30%). CONCLUSION: From 2005 to 2008, the overall incidence of C2 fracture rose at a rate that was 3.5 times faster than the elderly population growth.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207