MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7047322073

Fall Risk Classification in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Using a Smart Wrist-Worn Device and the Resident Assessment System-Home Care (RAI-HC)

2017· dissertation· en· W7047322073 sur OpenAlexafffund

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2017
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Établissements canadiensPublic Health Ontario
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Waterloo
Mots-clésWearable computerFalls in older adultsPoison controlOrdered logitLogistic regressionGeriatricsRisk assessmentFall preventionObservational studyOdds
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Falls are a serious problem especially in the aging population. To accurately identify individuals at risk for falls and mitigate the devastating effects caused by falls has become prominent to geriatrics and public health agencies. Leveraging wearable technologies and clinical assessment information may improve fall risk classification. \nObjectives: The overall objectives of this thesis project are to: (1) investigate the similarities and differences in physical activity (PA), heart rate (HR) and night sleep (SP) in a sample of community-dwelling older adults with varying fall histories, using a smart wrist-worn device; and (2) examine the risk factors for falls in the target population, create fall risk classification models and evaluate classification performances based on: i) wearable data, ii) the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC), and iii) the combination of wearable data and the RAI-HC system. \nMethods: Two parallel studies were conducted in this project. Study I was a community-based cross-sectional study, utilizing the RAI-HC system to examine the risk factors for falls in older people. In the primary analysis, the ordinal attribute of previous falls (0, 1, and ≥ 2) was used as the outcome variable to build the proportional odds models (POM) for ordinal logistic regression. In the secondary analysis, the binary attribute of falls (yes/no) was used to distinguish fallers and non-fallers. Study II, a prospective, observational study was conducted to investigate the similarities and differences among three independent faller groups (non-fallers, single fallers, and recurrent fallers) based on the number of previous falls in a sample of older adults living in community, with continuous measurements of PA, HR and SP using a smart wearable device. Descriptive statistics and simple statistical analyses were conducted to test the differences between groups. The wearable and RAI-HC assessment data were further analyzed and utilized to create fall risk classification models, with two supervised machine learning algorithms: logistic regression (LR) and decision tree (DT). The calculation of a set of performance metrics was performed to evaluate the classification performance of each final model. \nResults: Study I: Of 167,077 individuals aged ≥ 65 in the RAI-HC data set, 113,529 (68.0%) had no history of falls, 27,320 (16.4%) had one fall, and 26,226 (15.7%) experienced multiple (≥ 2) falls. Unsteady gait, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) decline, ADL self-performance on transfer dependency, short-term memory problem, primary modes of locomotion (indoors), stair climbing, bladder continence, and limit going outdoors due to fear of falling were significant predictors of fall risk in both human and computer feature selection models derived from the Minimum Data Set-Home Care (MDS-HC). The Method of Assigning Priority Levels (MAPLe) (1 vs. 5: odds ratio (OR) = 0.20; 95% confidence internal (CI), 0.18-0.22), Changes in Health, End-Stage Disease, Signs, and Symptoms (CHESS) (0 vs. 5: OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.21-0.36), ADL Clinical Assessment Protocol (CAP) (0 vs. 2: OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.20-0.22), Cognitive CAP (0 vs. 2: OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.31-0.35), and Urinary Incontinence CAP (3 vs. 0: OR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.62-1.94) were strong predictors in classifying older people with past fall histories based on the CAPs and a variety of summary scales and algorithms available within the RAI-HC assessment. The POM built on all available items on the RAI-HC data set achieved the best performance in classifying the three faller groups, with overall classification accuracy of 71.5%, and accuracies of 93.3%, 5.5% and 46.0% in classifying the non-faller, single faller and recurrent faller group, respectively. Likewise, the logistic regression model built on all available RAI-HC items achieved the best performance in distinguishing fallers and non-fallers, with the highest overall classification accuracy of 75.1%, the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.769, and the lowest Brier score of 0.171. Study II: Of 40 participants aged 65-93, 16 (40%) had no previous falls, while 8 (20%) and 16 (40%) had experienced one and multiple (≥ 2) falls, respectively. The wearable components of PA measurements extracted from the smart wrist-worn device were significantly different among three faller groups. Daily walking HR and daily activity time were identified as the best subset of predictors of fall risk with wearable data. Classification models derived from the RAI-HC data set containing 40 participants’ latest assessments outperformed those based on wearable data only. The best classification model was a decision tree based on the combination of both data sets with 80.0% of overall classification accuracy, and accuracies of 87.5%, 50.0% and 87.5% in classifying the non-faller, single faller and recurrent faller group, respectively. \nConclusions: Continuous measurements of PA, HR and SP appear to supplement the RAI-HC system in facilitating fall risk stratification. Future fall risk assessment studies should consider leveraging wearable technologies to supplement resident assessment instruments.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,247
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetSuperconducting and THz Device TechnologyTravaux en français237 207