Hipwatch: osteoporosis investigation and treatment after a hip fracture : a 6-month randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1) Objective: To test a novel Patient Empowerment and Physician Alerting (PEPA) intervention that seeks to improve the proportion of older adults who are diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis after hip fracture. 2) Methods: a) Design: Six-month randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized either to the PEPA group (intervention) or the ’usual-care’ group (control). b) Participants and Setting: Forty-eight women and men aged 60 years and older who were admitted to Vancouver General Hospital for a fall-related hip fracture. c) Measurements: The Diagnosis and Management Questionnaire (DMQ) was administered to all participants to determine the initiation of investigation and treatment of osteoporosis. The responses were validated in part by physician report obtained for one fourth of the participants. d) Statistical Analyses: I compared the difference between the two experimental groups in the number of individuals who received one or more osteoporosis specific ’best practices’ within 6 months after their hip fracture using the chi-square test. The alpha level was set at p < 0.05. 3) Results: Of the 78 individuals who were eligible for this study, 48 agreed to participate. Among these participants, I found a significant difference between the intervention and the control group in the number of individuals who received one or more osteoporosis ’best practices’ after their hip fracture (p < 0.01). In the PEPA group, 54% (p < 0.01) were prescribed bisphosphonate therapy, 29% (p < 0.01) were investigated by a bone mineral density test, 39% were initiated on Calcium and Vitamin D (p = 0.32) and 32% (p < 0.01) were recommended exercise within 6 months after experiencing a fragility hip fracture. In contrast, in the usual-care group 0% were prescribed bisphosphonate therapy, 0% were investigated by a bone mineral density test, 30% were initiated on Calcium and Vitamin D and 0% were recommended exercise within 6 months after experiencing a fragility hip fracture. 4) Summary and Conclusions: This cohort of individuals who fractured their hip did not receive guideline care unless recommended by the PEPA intervention letters sent to the participant and delivered to the primary care physician. Patients who sustain a low-trauma hip fracture have osteoporosis but did not routinely receive recommended osteoporosis ’best practice’ care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".