The FAITH and HEALTH Trials: Are We Studying Different Hip Fracture Patient Populations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, 2 randomized controlled trials were performed to evaluate 2 surgical strategies (internal fixation and arthroplasty) for the treatment of low-energy femoral neck fractures in patients aged ≥50 years. We evaluated whether patient populations in both the FAITH and HEALTH trials had different baseline characteristics and compared the displaced femoral neck fracture cohort from the FAITH trial to HEALTH trial patients. METHODS: Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and fracture characteristics from both trials were compared. FAITH trial patients with displaced fractures were then compared with HEALTH patients. T-tests and χ tests were performed to compare differences for sex, age, osteoporosis status, and ASA class. RESULTS: The mean age of the 1079 FAITH trial patients was 72 versus 79 years for the 1441 HEALTH trial patients. HEALTH patients were older, mostly White, used more medication, and had more comorbidities than FAITH patients. Of the 1079 FAITH trial patients, 32% (346/1079) had displaced fractures. Their mean age was significantly lower than that of HEALTH patients (66 vs. 79 years; P < 0.001). HEALTH trial patients were significantly more likely to be female, have ASA classification Class III/IV/V, and carry a diagnosis of osteoporosis, as compared with the subgroup of FAITH patients with displaced femoral neck fractures (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates significant differences between patients enrolled in the 2 trials. Although both studies focused on femoral neck fractures with similar enrollment criteria, patient populations differed. This sheds light on a noteworthy limitation of discordant patient enrollment into randomized trials, despite similar eligibility criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".