Fall and fall-related injury studies among older aboriginal people in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Little is known about the scope or nature of falls or fall prevention among older Aboriginal/Indigenous people. Aims/Objectives/Purpose To identify peer-reviewed literature with epidemiology and prevention evidence on the topic of falls and fall-related injury among older Aboriginal people in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Methods A key word search of relevant databases was conducted using combinations of terminology for accidental falls and a comprehensive list of terms for Aboriginal status specific to each country. Each study was independently reviewed by two reviewers against the inclusion criteria with discrepancies determined by a third. Results/Outcome 34 publications met the review criteria; United States=14; Australia=8; Canada=7; New Zealand=3; international=2. Most are morbidity (14)/mortality (6) reports or reviews (5), with very little on fall prevention. Significance/Contribution to the Field The findings bring greater awareness to the seriousness of the issue and point to areas of urgent need for future research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".