502 The Prospective Geriatric Patient Reported Outcomes (GERI-PRO) Study: Understanding Post- Traumatic Injury Recovery from the Patient’s Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) provide unique insight to the patients experience with their healthcare related quality of life QoL. This study aims to 1. Characterize geriatric trauma patients’(GTPs) perceived QoL, at time of injury vs. 3- and 6-months post-injury. 2. Introduce and validate a PROs tool, known as the Five Favorite Activities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This is a prospective cohort study of older adults (≥65) presenting to our trauma center with mild traumatic brain injury and/or mild spine, thoracic or extremity fractures. Participants will be asked to complete the NIH-validated Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS)-29, PROMIS Cognitive and Functional Abilities, Life-Space Levels and Five Favorite Activities assessment (a list of the five favorite overall and daily activities) tools. Cognitive function will be measured using Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool. Physical function will be evaluated using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care 6-click tool. Patients will be contacted at 3- and 6- months post discharge and asked to complete the assessment tools listed above to evaluate changes in QoL during the recovery process. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We hypothesize that geriatric trauma patients will experience a decline in QoL, physical and cognitive function post-injury. This decline will be associated with a decrease in return to the ability to participate in their pre-injury Five Favorite Activities . DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: First, this study is one of the first to evaluate PROMs in GTPs. Second, the Five Favorite Activities PROM, will provide a unique, direct and individualized characterization of what GTPs find important to their recovery post injury compared to the current generic PROMs. This information can be utilized in the future to align goal of care with expectations
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".