Cost-effectiveness of hip protectors in the prevention of osteoporosis related hip fractures in elderly nursing home residents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hip fracture is a common complication of osteoporosis, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality, with a high financial cost to the healthcare system. Hip protectors have been advocated as an effective method to prevent hip fractures in high-risk individuals. This study models the cost-effectiveness of hip protectors in the prevention of osteoporosis related hip fractures in elderly nursing home residents. METHODS: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing hip protectors to "no treatment" and to "calcium and vitamin D supplements." The study population was a hypothetical cohort of 1000 nursing home residents. A societal perspective, with a lifetime time horizon, was adopted. Data regarding costs, effectiveness, and quality of life measures were collected from the current literature and from Peace Arch Hospital, a community hospital in White Rock, British Columbia, Canada. Sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Hip protector use was found to be a dominant strategy compared to no treatment and to calcium and vitamin D supplements. Dominance implies lower cost and higher effect, generating cost-effectiveness ratios less than zero. Dominance with respect to cost and effectiveness of hip protectors in preventing hip fractures persisted when the model was subjected to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that hip protectors could save money while preventing hip fractures and improving quality of life in nursing home residents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".