International Fragility Fracture Network Delphi consensus statement on the principles of anaesthesia for patients with hip fracture
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, the number of hip fractures is expected to double between 2017 and 2050, from ~2.2 million to ~4.5 million. For the purposes of analgesia and remobilisation, ~ 99% of hip fractures should be fixed surgically, requiring anaesthesia. Surgery for hip fracture has become increasingly standardised, but peri‐operative medical and anaesthetic care varies considerably. Peri‐operative morbidity and mortality remain high. Guidelines exist for the anaesthetic management of patients with hip fracture, but are specific to the healthcare systems of Western nations. This consensus statement (advises basic standards of anaesthetic care that hip fracture patients should expect to receive in any country, regardless of resources. On behalf of the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN), the Anaesthesia Working Group (SW) invited internationally recognised experts in hip fracture anaesthesia and national professional leaders to contribute to a Consensus Com-mittee.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it