MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609957878 · doi:10.1016/j.bonr.2017.04.003

Fractures in indigenous compared to non-indigenous populations: A systematic review of rates and aetiology

2017· review· en· W2609957878 on OpenAlex
Sharon L. Brennan‐Olsen, Sara Vogrin, William D. Leslie, Rita Kinsella, Maree Toombs, Gustavo Duque, Sarah Hosking, Kara L. Holloway‐Kew, Brianna J. Doolan, Lana J. Williams, Richard S. Page, Julie A. Pasco, Shae E. Quirk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBone Reports · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDeakin University
KeywordsIndigenousMedicineDemographyPopulationCINAHLLife expectancySystematic reviewMEDLINEGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Compared to non-indigenous populations, indigenous populations experience disproportionately greater morbidity, and a reduced life expectancy; however, conflicting data exist regarding whether a higher risk of fracture is experienced by either population. We systematically evaluate evidence for whether differences in fracture rates at any skeletal site exist between indigenous and non-indigenous populations of any age, and to identify potential risk factors that might explain these differences. METHODS: On 31 August 2016 we conducted a comprehensive computer-aided search of peer-reviewed literature without date limits. We searched PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and reference lists of relevant publications. The protocol for this systematic review is registered in PROSPERO, the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (CRD42016043215). Using the World Health Organization reference population as standard, hip fracture incidence rates were re-standardized for comparability between countries. RESULTS: Our search yielded 3227 articles; 283 potentially eligible articles were cross-referenced against predetermined criteria, leaving 27 articles for final inclusion. Differences in hip fracture rates appeared as continent-specific, with lower rates observed for indigenous persons in all countries except for Canada and Australia where the opposite was observed. Indigenous persons consistently had higher rates of trauma-related fractures; the highest were observed in Australia where craniofacial fracture rates were 22-times greater for indigenous compared to non-indigenous women. After adjustment for socio-demographic and clinical risk factors, approximately a three-fold greater risk of osteoporotic fracture and five-fold greater risk of craniofacial fractures was observed for indigenous compared to non-indigenous persons; diabetes, substance abuse, comorbidity, lower income, locality, and fracture history were independently associated with an increased risk of fracture. CONCLUSIONS: The observed paucity of data and suggestion of continent-specific differences indicate an urgent need for further research regarding indigenous status and fracture epidemiology and aetiology. Our findings also have implications for communities, governments and healthcare professionals to enhance the prevention of trauma-related fractures in indigenous persons, and an increased focus on modifiable lifestyle behaviours to prevent osteoporotic fractures in all populations.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.364 · 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