MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105316737 · doi:10.1159/000510903

Comprehensive Geriatric Care to Improve Mobility after Hip Fracture: An RCT

2020· article· en· W3105316737 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wendy L. Cook, Penelope M. A. Brasher, Pierre Guy, Stirling Bryan, Meghan G Donaldson, Joanie Sims‐Gould, Heather McKay, Karim M. Khan, Maureen C. Ashe

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialHip fractureMedicineGerontologyGeriatricsPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOsteoporosisSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) for older adults during hospitalization for hip fracture can improve mobility, but it is unclear whether CGC delivered after a return to community living improves mobility compared with usual post-discharge care. OBJECTIVE: To determine if an outpatient clinic-based CGC regime in the first year after hip fracture improved mobility performance at 12 months. METHODS: A two-arm, 1:1 parallel group, pragmatic, single-blind, single-center, randomized controlled trial at 3 hospitals in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Participants were community-dwelling adults, aged ≥65 years, with a hip fracture in the previous 3-12 months, who had no dementia and walked ≥10 m before the fracture occurred. Target enrollment was 130 participants. Clinic-based CGC was delivered by a geriatrician, physiotherapist, and occupational therapist. Primary outcome was the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB; 0-12) at 12 months. RESULTS: We randomized 53/313 eligible participants with a mean (SD) age of 79.7 (7.9) years to intervention (n = 26) and usual care (UC, n = 27), and 49/53 (92%) completed the study. Mean 12-month (SD) SPPB scores in the intervention and UC groups were 9.08 (3.03) and 8.24 (2.44). The between-group difference was 0.9 (95% CI -0.3 to 2.0, p = 0.13). Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The small sample size of less than half our recruitment target precludes definitive conclusions about the effect of our intervention. However, our results are consistent with similar studies on this population and intervention.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontologySame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207