A COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL, NUTRITIONAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS AMONG FALLERS AND NON-FALLERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls are a major threat to the health of older adults. Researchers agree that falling is a complex problem influenced by a multiplicity of factors. However, most research has examined falls from a functional perspective involving frail, largely home-bound or institutionalized older adults. PURPOSE The purpose was to compare the physical, nutritional and psychosocial profile of fallers and non-fallers in a sample of community-dwelling older adults. METHODS This study included 138 older adults. Measures included physical fitness (grip and plantar flexor strength, flexibility in hip flexion and shoulder abduction, functional mobility, and self-paced walking speed), dietary intake (24-hour dietary recall), and psychosocial parameters (depression and life satisfaction). Falls statistics included the number and nature of falls in the last year. Demographic data and current health status were assessed. Independent t-test was used to compare fallers and non-fallers. RESULTS The mean age was 76 years (range = 66 to 96) and 54% were female. 31% reported falling one or more times in the last year. Compared to non-fallers, fallers had significantly (p < 0.05) lower grip (187 vs. 259 N) and plantar flexor strength (465 vs. 602 N), and less flexibility in hip flexion (95 vs. 112 degrees) and shoulder abduction (125 vs. 139 degrees). Also, fallers had poorer functional mobility and slower walking speed. There were significant differences in the consumption of macro and micronutrients, with fallers having considerably lower intakes compared to non-fallers (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in depression and life satisfaction. CONCLUSION The study showed that fallers had significantly lower physical function and poorer nutritional status, compared to non-fallers. No differences in the psychosocial variables were observed. Although the functional and dietary status were significantly different between fallers and non-fallers, further research is necessary to establish any causal link. Supported by Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".