Prevention of fall-related injuries: A clinical research agenda 2009-2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decades of research have been conducted on the risk, prevention, and management of falls. Extensive research addresses the identified intrinsic and extrinsic fall risks and the importance of screening for these risks. The emphasis for patient safety interventions surrounding falls and injury pre-vention must be on patient-centered, multifactorial, individualized care plans that are population-based. Yet the link between risk assessment and the effectiveness of population-based interventions remains weak. Early efforts focused on risk factors for prevention of falls in the elderly, largely ignoring interventions and also considering all fallers as one single group. Research then moved into fall screening and risk assessment, but these two processes were often intermingled, leading to confusion about linking risk to specific interventions. Still the focus was on fall prevention and the elderly, lumping all fallers into one single group. Next, research focused on interventions, but the focus was on fall prevention and the elderly, again lumping all fallers together. A new agenda begins to question this focus on fall prevention and addresses fall protection and injury prevention, emphasizing therapeutic risk associated with activity and community participation. This new agenda also recognizes the need to segment high-risk patient populations to identify unique risks and tailor interventions (e.g., peripheral neuropathy, wheelchair fallers) using new three-dimensional techniques to assess gait and balance as well as other key risk factors. The new agenda also goes beyond fall screen-ing and fall risk assessment, emphasizing the need to screen individuals, fol-low up with in-depth risk assessment protocols, and link interventions to specific modifiable risk factors. As more evidence is available to clinicians, for translational research efforts are needed to develop clinical tools to make it easier for clinicians to provide evidence-based practice and to explore more effective and efficient strategies for implementing evidence-based programs across clinical settings and facilities. To advocate for evidence-based practice in fall prevention and
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".