MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hip Fracture Risk Assessment Tools for Adults Aged 80 Years and Older

2024· article· en· W4400112739 on OpenAlexaff
Kristine E. Ensrud, John T. Schousboe, Carolyn Crandall, William D. Leslie, Howard A Fink, Peggy M. Cawthon, Deborah M. Kado, N.E. Lane, Jane A. Cauley, Lisa Langsetmo

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineFRAXHip fractureFemoral neckRisk assessmentReceiver operating characteristicPopulationPhysical therapyCohortOsteoporosisDemographyInternal medicineBone mineralOsteoporotic fracture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: While adults aged 80 years and older account for 70% of hip fractures in the US, performance of fracture risk assessment tools in this population is uncertain. Objective: To compare performance of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator, and femoral neck bone mineral density (FNBMD) alone in 5-year hip fracture prediction. Design, Setting and Participants: Prognostic analysis of 3 prospective cohort studies including participants attending an index examination (1997 to 2016) at age 80 years or older. Data were analyzed from March 2023 to April 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants contacted every 4 or 6 months after index examination to ascertain incident hip fractures and vital status. Predicted 5-year hip fracture probabilities calculated using FRAX and Garvan models incorporating FNBMD and FNBMD alone. Model discrimination assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Model calibration assessed by comparing observed vs predicted hip fracture probabilities within predicted risk quintiles. Results: A total of 8890 participants were included, with a mean (SD) age at index examination of 82.6 (2.7) years; 4906 participants (55.2%) were women, 866 (9.7%) were Black, 7836 (88.1%) were White, and 188 (2.1%) were other races and ethnicities. During 5-year follow-up, 321 women (6.5%) and 123 men (3.1%) experienced a hip fracture; 818 women (16.7%) and 921 men (23.1%) died before hip fracture. Among women, AUC was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72) for FRAX, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.72) for Garvan, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for FNBMD alone (FNBMD superior to FRAX, P = .01; and Garvan, P = .01). Among men, AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.75) for FRAX, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) for Garvan, and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) for FNBMD alone (P < .001 Garvan and FNBMD alone superior to FRAX). Among both sexes, Garvan greatly overestimated hip fracture risk among individuals in upper quintiles of predicted risk, while FRAX modestly underestimated risk among those in intermediate quintiles of predicted risk. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of adults aged 80 years and older, FRAX and Garvan tools incorporating FNBMD compared with FNBMD alone did not improve 5-year hip fracture discrimination. FRAX modestly underpredicted observed hip fracture probability in intermediate-risk individuals. Garvan markedly overpredicted observed hip fracture probability in high-risk individuals. Until better prediction tools are available, clinicians should prioritize consideration of hip BMD, life expectancy, and patient preferences in decision-making regarding drug treatment initiation for hip fracture prevention in late-life adults.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.354 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207