Predictors of Exceeding Target Inpatient Rehabilitation Length of Stay After Hip Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify factors associated with exceeding a target inpatient rehabilitation length of stay of 28 days or less for individuals with hip fracture. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of hip fracture patients admitted to an urban Canadian inpatient rehabilitation facility between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2018. Patient characteristics previously shown to be associated with individual outcomes and/or length of stay after hip fracture were extracted from the institution's data warehouse. Regression models were used to examine factors associated with exceeding target length of stay as well as overall length of stay. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three subjects were included in the analysis. Three hundred forty-five (70%) met and 148 (30%) exceeded their target length of stay. Patients who exceeded their target were more likely to be elderly (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.08), to live alone prefracture (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.91), to have dementia (odds ratio, 2.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-6.97), and higher admission pain scores (severe pain odds ratio, 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-5.93). Higher admission motor Functional Independence Measure scores (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.98) were protective. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing age, having dementia, living alone prefracture, and reporting moderate or severe pain at the time of admission not only increased the odds of an individual exceeding their target length of stay but also was associated with an overall increase in length of stay. Conversely, having a higher admission motor Functional Independence Measure score was protective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".