MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367369432 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4821

Global Epidemiology of Hip Fractures: Secular Trends in Incidence Rate, Post‐Fracture Treatment, and All‐Cause Mortality

2023· article· en· W4367369432 on OpenAlexaff
Chor‐Wing Sing, Tzu‐Chieh Lin, Sharon Bartholomew, J. Simon Bell, Corina Bennett, Kebede Beyene, Pauline Bosco‐Lévy, Brian D. Bradbury, Amy Hai Yan Chan, Manju Chandran, Cyrus Cooper, Maria de Ridder, Caroline Y. Doyon, C. Droz‐Perroteau, Ganga Ganesan, Sirpa Hartikainen, Jenni Ilomäki, Han Eol Jeong, Douglas P. Kiel, Kiyoshi Kubota, Edward Chia‐Cheng Lai, Jeff Lange, E. Michael Lewiecki, Julian Lin, Jiannong Liu, Joe Maskell, Mirhelen Mendes de Abreu, James O’Kelly, Nobuhiro Ooba, Alma B Pedersen, Albert Prats‐Uribe, Daniel Prieto‐Alhambra, Simon Xiwen Qin, Ju‐Young Shin, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Kelvin Bryan Tan, Tracy Thomas, Anna‐Maija Tolppanen, Katia Verhamme, Grace Hsin‐Min Wang, Sawaeng Watcharathanakij, Stephen J. Wood, Ching‐Lung Cheung, Ian Chi Kei Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Cheng Kung University HospitalUniversity of SouthamptonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Cheng Kung UniversityAmgen
KeywordsSecular variationEpidemiologyHip fractureIncidence (geometry)MedicineDemographyMortality rateOsteoporosisSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this international study, we examined the incidence of hip fractures, postfracture treatment, and all-cause mortality following hip fractures, based on demographics, geography, and calendar year. We used patient-level healthcare data from 19 countries and regions to identify patients aged 50 years and older hospitalized with a hip fracture from 2005 to 2018. The age- and sex-standardized incidence rates of hip fractures, post-hip fracture treatment (defined as the proportion of patients receiving anti-osteoporosis medication with various mechanisms of action [bisphosphonates, denosumab, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, or teriparatide] following a hip fracture), and the all-cause mortality rates after hip fractures were estimated using a standardized protocol and common data model. The number of hip fractures in 2050 was projected based on trends in the incidence and estimated future population demographics. In total, 4,115,046 hip fractures were identified from 20 databases. The reported age- and sex-standardized incidence rates of hip fractures ranged from 95.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.8-95.4) in Brazil to 315.9 (95% CI 314.0-317.7) in Denmark per 100,000 population. Incidence rates decreased over the study period in most countries; however, the estimated total annual number of hip fractures nearly doubled from 2018 to 2050. Within 1 year following a hip fracture, post-hip fracture treatment ranged from 11.5% (95% CI 11.1% to 11.9%) in Germany to 50.3% (95% CI 50.0% to 50.7%) in the United Kingdom, and all-cause mortality rates ranged from 14.4% (95% CI 14.0% to 14.8%) in Singapore to 28.3% (95% CI 28.0% to 28.6%) in the United Kingdom. Males had lower use of anti-osteoporosis medication than females, higher rates of all-cause mortality, and a larger increase in the projected number of hip fractures by 2050. Substantial variations exist in the global epidemiology of hip fractures and postfracture outcomes. Our findings inform possible actions to reduce the projected public health burden of osteoporotic fractures among the aging population. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 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

Citations526
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207