One-year mortality rates of fragility fractures of the pelvis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates the 1-year mortality of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) in patients categorized under this system and treated with surgery or conservative methods, aiming to assess the algorithm's effectiveness. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for English studies on the 1-year mortality of FFP, with no publication date restrictions. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled 1-year mortality rates were calculated using random-effects models. In addition, if applicable, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were employed. PRISMA guidelines were followed for reporting, and the study was registered with PROSPERO. Results: Analysis of 22 studies encompassing 3,265 patients with FFP revealed a concerning overall 1-year mortality rate of 15.5%. Mortality varied by fracture type, with FFP IV having the lowest rate (7.5%) and FFP III having the highest (17.0%). All studies concurred on conservative treatment for FFP I. For other fracture types, mortality rates differed between conservative and surgical approaches. Conservative treatment resulted in rates of 14.9, 21.8, and 5.1% for FFP II, III, and IV, respectively. Conversely, surgical treatment yielded mortality rates of 16.8, 19.5, and 24.2% for FFP II, III, and IV, respectively. Conclusion: Fragility fractures of the pelvis have high mortality, especially in FFP III. Conservative treatment may be suitable for FFP I, while surgery might be better for FFP III. The rarity of FFP IV fractures limits conclusions, and FFP II fractures lack a clear treatment consensus. Further research is needed to optimize management for these fracture types.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it