MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161909277 · doi:10.82308/38696

Predicting factors of contralateral hip fractures among patients above 55 years of age

2006· dissertation· en· W7161909277 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josée. Delisle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHip fractureIncidence (geometry)Prospective cohort studyRetrospective cohort studyRisk factorEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. The incidence of osteoporotic fractures increases by 1-3% per year of age. Nine to twelve percent of patients that have suffered a primary hip fracture will have a fracture of the contralateral hip within 5 years. Our objective is to identify predictive factors of contralateral hip fractures among men and women over 55 years of age. Methods. A case control study with matched pairs was conducted, through a retrospective chart review of patients admitted for hip fractures at the Jewish General Hospital (JGH) and the Montreal General Hospital (MGH) between 1992 and 2004. Results. Contralateral hip fractures were most strongly associated with the use of mobility aid (OR= 5.69, CI 95% (3.20-10.14)). No other risk factors could be identified as predictors, probably due to missing data. Conclusion. This study confirms the use of mobility aid as a predictor of contralateral hip fractures. Future prospective risk studies may further optimize the diagnostic accuracy for predicting contralateral hip fractures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207