P3‐304: FALLS IN COMMUNITY‐DWELLING OLDER ADULTS WITH EARLY MEMORY PROBLEMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Project Description: Falls in people with dementia is an under-researched area. A dearth of studies exist examining those with early memory problems, with the large majority reporting about people with moderate to severe impairments living in specialized care units. This study examined fall incidence and factors associated with falls in people with early memory problems. Fifty-nine community dwelling Rural and Remote Memory Clinic (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada) patients (Patient Group (PG): x ̅ age = 72, SD=10.0, 55.9% female) and 50 older adults with no known cognitive problems (Older Adult Group (OAG) - x ̅ age = 73, SD=9.0, 68.0 % female) participated. Participants completed a baseline medical and medication history, and neuropsychological and physical tests, and PG caregivers and those in the OAG completed a monthly fall diary for six months. Mean Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE) score for the PG was 25 (SD =4) and 29 (SD=1) for the OAG, p = 0.01; 3MS scores were also significantly different between groups (PG x ̅ = 82, SD=13; OAG x ̅ = 96, SD=3; p = 0.01). MMSE and 3MS scores were similar for PG fallers and non-fallers. Falls incidence over the six months did not differ significantly between groups, PG = 35.6%, OAG = 38%, p = 0.80. Total number of mediations was significantly higher in the PG group (p = 0.01). Timed-Up-and-Go, Berg Balance Scale and Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (Gait and Balance) scores differed between PG fallers and PG non-fallers. Despite significant differences in cognitive and physical measures, fall incidence between patients with early memory problems did not differ from older adults without cognitive problems. Interventions for modifiable risk factors, such as medication use and gait and balance performance, should be examined to determine if addressing these factors can positively affect fall risk as memory problems progress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".