The experience of feeling old after a fragility fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been little exploration of the effect of fragility fractures on patient perceptions of their age. The common assumption is that fractures "happen to old people". In individuals with a fragility fracture, our objective was to explore the experience of feeling old after sustaining a fragility fracture. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from 145 community-dwelling women and men participating in six qualitative primary studies was conducted relying on a phenomenological approach. Participants were English-speaking, 45 years and older, who had sustained a recent fragility fracture or reported a history of previous fragility fractures. Data for the analysis included direct statements about feeling old as well any discussions relevant to age post-fracture. RESULTS: We highlight two interpretations based on how individuals with a history of fragility fracture talked about age: (1) Participants described feeling old post-fracture. Several participants made explicit statements about being "old". However, the majority of participants discussed experiences post-fracture that implied that they felt old and had resigned themselves to being old. This appeared to entail a shift in thinking and perception of self that was permanent and had become a part of their identity; and (2) Perceptions of increasing age after sustaining a fracture were reinforced by health care providers, family, and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the notion that fractures "happen to old people" and suggest that fractures can make people feel old. Careful consideration of how bone health messages are communicated to patients post-fracture by health care providers is warranted. (Word Count: 248).
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".