Factors associated with pain intensity and analgesic use during inpatient rehabilitation for hip fracture.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Effective pain management is vital for hip fracture recovery, yet the factors influencing pain reporting and pain medication use during inpatient rehabilitation for hip fractures are not well understood. This observational study aimed to (a) determine how cognitive abilities, expressive and receptive language abilities, and age are related to average daily pain intensity and analgesic use and (b) how average daily pain intensity and analgesic use are related to length of stay and functional outcomes in rehabilitation. DESIGN: Data were retrospectively obtained from 163 patients recovering from unilateral trochanteric fractures of the femur. RESULTS: = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.05, -0.01]). Average daily pain intensity and analgesic use were not related to functional outcomes in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: These findings inform the considerations for assessing and treating pain during inpatient rehabilitation. Supplemental strategies for assessing pain in older patients and alternative pain mitigation strategies for patients with impaired cognitive abilities should be considered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".