ArticleJBMR plus2026
DXA-derived biofidelic finite element models for quantifying the efficacy of hip protectors.
Article in JBMR plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to develop a tool to predict the probability of hip fracture given a fall, using biofidelic finite element models (FEMs) built from DXA scans. Additionally, we evaluated the effectiveness of hip protectors, assuming full compliance, by quantifying the reduction in relative risk in-silico. This study included 700 subjects (325 males and 375 females) from the Population Health and Eye Disease Profile in Elderly Singaporeans (PIONEER) cohort, consisting of Chinese, Indian, and Malay ethnicities. The probability of hip fracture was calculated using DXA-based biofidelic FEMs by simulating various falls. The relative risk was determined by comparing fracture probabilities between falls with and without hip protectors. The overall probability of hip fracture in the cohort (mean age: 71.5 yr) was 4.49% (SD: 4.71). Chinese males had a significantly higher fracture risk, with odds ratios of 3.15 (95% CI: 1.81-5.49) compared to Malay males, and 4.57 (95% CI, 2.21-9.44) compared to Indian males. Similarly, Chinese females had a higher fracture risk, with odds ratios of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.16-4.24) compared to Malay females, and 7.70 (95% CI, 2.30-25.76) compared to Indian females. The relative risk with hip protectors was 0.38 (SD: 0.28) for males overall, with subgroup values of 0.42 (SD: 0.29) for Chinese, 0.33 (SD: 0.29) for Indians, and 0.38 (SD: 0.26) for Malays. For females, the overall relative risk was 0.43 (SD: 0.28), with subgroup values of 0.41 (SD: 0.21) for Chinese, 0.37 (SD: 0.32) for Indian, and 0.51 (SD: 0.29) for Malay, with no significant differences between ethnicities. In conclusion, we have developed an in-silico tool to assess hip fracture risk and evaluate the effectiveness of hip protectors using clinical DXA scans. These findings support the adoption of hip protectors as a preventive measure to reduce fracture risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.