The Role of Postural Stability and Other Factors in Distal Radius Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the thesis was to describe the factors leading to falls in distal radius fracture (DRF) events, explore patient perceived risk of falls, and postural stability. A mixed method study described the type of fall in DRF patients (n= 1454) and patient perceived contributing factors (n=29). A prospective cohort study examined the postural stability and related fall risk of DRF participants (n=137) in Biodex Balance System (BBS) and compared to normative values. Environmental factors were a major contributor to DRF events. Older adults (44 to 65 years) had the highest rate of DRF (female: male ratio of 2:1). Only a minority (12%) of DRF participants were at fall risk according to BBS fall risk score. There was no significant change in fall risk or postural stability score in the year following a DRF event.\nKeywords: Distal radius fracture, risk factors, fall risk, postural stability, Biodex Balance System.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".