Evaluation of Falls Risk in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Using Body-Worn Sensors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls are the most common cause of injury and hospitalization and one of the principal causes of death and disability in older adults worldwide. This study aimed to determine if a method based on body-worn sensor data can prospectively predict falls in community-dwelling older adults, and to compare its falls prediction performance to two standard methods on the same data set. METHODS: Data were acquired using body-worn sensors, mounted on the left and right shanks, from 226 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 71.5 ± 6.7 years, 164 female) to quantify gait and lower limb movement while performing the 'Timed Up and Go' (TUG) test in a geriatric research clinic. Participants were contacted by telephone 2 years following their initial assessment to determine if they had fallen. These outcome data were used to create statistical models to predict falls. RESULTS: Results obtained through cross-validation yielded a mean classification accuracy of 79.69% (mean 95% CI: 77.09-82.34) in prospectively identifying participants that fell during the follow-up period. Results were significantly (p < 0.0001) more accurate than those obtained for falls risk estimation using two standard measures of falls risk (manually timed TUG and the Berg balance score, which yielded mean classification accuracies of 59.43% (95% CI: 58.07-60.84) and 64.30% (95% CI: 62.56-66.09), respectively). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the quantification of movement during the TUG test using body-worn sensors could lead to a robust method for assessing future falls risk.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it