MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991529059

The role of edmonton frailty scale and asa grade in the assessment of morbidity and mortality after fracture neck of femur in elderly.

2019· article· en· W2991529059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aysha Rajeev, Joseph Anto

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisBody mass indexIncidence (geometry)Hip fractureFemurFrailty IndexGeriatric traumaPhysical therapyInternal medicineSurgeryPoison controlInjury Severity ScoreInjury preventionEmergency medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frailty is a complex syndrome which affects the energy, physical ability, cognition and general health. Hip fractures are associated with causes and consequences of frailty such as osteoporosis, frequent falls, low body mass index, multiple medications and cognitive impairment. The aim of our study is to assess the value of ASA grade and Edmonton frailty score in the outcome of treatment of fracture neck of femurs in elderly patients. 192 patients admitted with fracture neck of femur were included in the study. The mean age was 79.23 years .120 patients had ASA grade 3, 56 patients had ASA grade 2 and 16 patients had ASA grade 1.The frailty index was calculated using Edmonton scoring index. Ninety four patients (49%) had low frailty score and 88 patients (51%) had a high frailty score of more than 10.All patients were followed up 4 weeks and one year after the surgery. In conclusion the patients with frailty scores and ASA grade have got more chance of developing wound infection. They also have got higher incidence of mortality and morbidity following fracture neck of femur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207