MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310818412 · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00110

Comorbidity and functional outcomes after hip fracture: an umbrella review protocol

2022· article· en· W4310818412 on OpenAlexaff
David H. Nguyen, David Lightfoot, W. Shane Journeay

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoProvidence Health CareDalhousie UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityHip fractureMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewChecklistCritical appraisalMeta-analysisPhysical therapyCohort studyAlternative medicinePsychiatryOsteoporosisInternal medicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the review is to examine the association between comorbidity and functional outcomes after hip fracture. INTRODUCTION: Patients who have suffered a hip fracture are at risk of poor functional recovery, which may be influenced by factors such as age, functional status at baseline, and comorbid conditions. Patients recovering from a hip fracture seldom present without other comorbid conditions. This proposed review will lead to a better understanding of the association between comorbidity and functional recovery after hip fracture and will assist in the medical support of patients recovering from these injuries. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews that include cohort studies reporting on comorbidity and functional outcomes after hip fracture in adults (≥ 18 years old) published at any time will be included. Study protocols, papers that are not systematic reviews, papers not reporting on comorbidities or functional outcomes, and papers published in languages other than English will be excluded from the review. METHODS: The JBI methodology for umbrella reviews will be followed. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be searched. Two reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Data extraction will be performed by 2 independent reviewers on the reviews selected for inclusion. Extracted study characteristics will include the author, year published, databases searched, number of studies/patients included, comorbidity measures, functional outcomes, presence of meta-analysis, and bias appraisal results. The quality of included studies will be reported using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses. A summary of the extracted data will be presented in tabular format and a narrative synthesis will be performed on the collected systematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021272502.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207