MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024623710 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4048

The Effect of Fall Biomechanics on Risk for Hip Fracture in Older Adults: A Cohort Study of Video-Captured Falls in Long-Term Care

2020· article· en· W3024623710 on OpenAlexafffund
Yijian Yang, Vicki Komisar, Nataliya Shishov, Bryan Lo, Alexandra M.B. Korall, Fabio Feldman, Stephen N. Robinovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthUniversity of ManitobaGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationSimon Fraser University
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAGE-WELL
KeywordsMedicineBiomechanicsHip fractureCohortCohort studyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFalls in older adultsTerm (time)Poison controlPhysical therapyInjury preventionOsteoporosisEmergency medicineInternal medicinePhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 95% of hip fractures in older adults are caused by falls, yet only 1% to 2% of falls result in hip fracture. Our current understanding of the types of falls that lead to hip fracture is based on reports by the faller or witness. We analyzed videos of real-life falls in long-term care to provide objective evidence on the factors that separate falls that result in hip fracture from falls that do not. Between 2007 and 2018, we video-captured 2377 falls by 646 residents in two long-term care facilities. Hip fracture was documented in 30 falls. We analyzed each video with a structured questionnaire, and used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to determine relative risk ratios (RRs) for hip fracture associated with various fall characteristics. All hip fractures involved falls from standing height, and pelvis impact with the ground. After excluding falls from lower than standing height, risk for hip fracture was higher for sideways landing configurations (RR = 5.50; 95% CI, 2.36-12.78) than forward or backward, and for falls causing hip impact (3.38; 95% CI, 1.49-7.67). However, hip fracture risk was just as high in falls initially directed sideways as forward (1.14; 95% CI, 0.49-2.67), due to the tendency for rotation during descent. Falling while using a mobility aid was associated with lower fracture risk (0.30; 95% CI, 0.09-1.00). Seventy percent of hip fractures involved impact to the posterolateral aspect of the pelvis. Hip protectors were worn in 73% of falls, and hip fracture risk was lower in falls where hip protectors were worn (0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.99). Age and sex were not associated with fracture risk. There was no evidence of spontaneous fractures. In this first study of video-captured falls causing hip fracture, we show that the biomechanics of falls involving hip fracture were different than nonfracture falls for fall height, fall direction, impact locations, and use of hip protectors. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations129
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207