Recovery of physical function after hip fracture: Analysis of secondary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of comprehensive geriatric management on physical function after hip fracture. Materials and methods: This was a parallel-group 1:1 single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Fifty-three older adults (≥ 65 years) 3 to 12 months after hip fracture were randomized through a web-based system (independent statistical company) into usual care or usual care plus intervention (B4). The B4 group received management by a geriatrician, physical therapist and other health professionals. Outcomes were: Leg (knee extension) and grip strength, timed up and go; and self-report function at baseline, 6 and 12 months (blinded assessment). We estimated between-group differences at 6 and 12 months using linear mixed models, and compared function between groups with a global statistical test (incorporating the five measures). Results: There were no statistically significant differences between groups. For the combined sample, strength on the fractured leg (2.63, 95% CI: 0.86, 4.40 kg) and non-fractured leg (1.36, 95% CI: 0.12, 2.70 kg) were statistically higher than baseline values. Conclusions: There were no between group differences in physical function. Overall, older adults from both groups had small significant improvements in bilateral leg strength at final assessment, but below age-matched normative values.
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 | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".