Abstracts from the 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the Canadian Geriatrics Society Quebec City, April 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify current practices and care gaps for elderly patients admitted following a hip fracture, and to characterize patients' patterns of functional recovery over 1-year.Relevance Increased awareness of existing gaps and improving our understanding of patients' recovery can help optimize patients' outcomes.Methods: Forty community-dwelling participants with an osteoporotic hip fracture (≥ 65 years) were recruited and followed over 1 year.Patients were divided according to their pre-fracture mobility: low, medium, and high.Recovery was defined in two ways: "traditional definition'' based on return to pre-fracture mobility, and "acceptable'' based on ability to do stairs.Statistical analysis: Single-subject design approach for analyzing small samples was used to identify sources of variability in recovery over time.Results: Some gaps in services received during hospitalization and at the time of discharge were: (i) 63% had a surgical delay > 48 hours; (ii) > 75% had inadequate osteoporosis management; and (iii) only 35% had a home visit within 1 week of returning home.Using the traditional definition for recovery: 80%, 52%, 33% recovered from the low, medium, and high baseline groups, respectively; 40%, 43%, 33% maintained this recovery up to 1 year.Using the definition for acceptable recovery, 20%, 43%, 71% recovered, respectively, and 10%, 38%, 57% maintained the recovery.Patients generally lost functional improvement between 6-12 months, following waning of rehabilitation services. Conclusion:Despite the plethora of guidelines specifically for osteoporosis management following hip fracture, gaps exist in care practices across the continuum.The extent of recovery depended on the definition however, after initial improvement, the majority of patients deteriorated after 6-months.A booster rehabilitation program is indicated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.284 | 0.058 |
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".