Older Women With Osteoporosis Have Increased Postural Sway and Weaker Quadriceps Strength Than Counterparts With Normal Bone Mass: Overlooked Determinants of Fracture Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Fracture risk is determined by both bone health and fall risk. Evidence suggests that older women with osteoporosis may have a greater risk of falling compared with their age-matched counterparts without osteoporosis ( 1). To determine whether fall risk screening should be a routine part of medical assessment in older women with osteoporosis, a comparison of fall risk between those with osteoporosis and healthy age-matched counterparts is needed. The purpose of this study was to compare 3 established fall risk factors between these 2 groups of women. Methods. 42 women between the ages of 64 and 75 years old participated in this study. 21 women with osteoporosis were matched by age and current physical activity level to 21 women without osteoporosis. The performance on 3 fall risk factors (quadriceps strength, balance, and functional mobility) was compared between the 2 groups using multivariate analysis of variance. The level of significance was set at p ≤.05. Results. There was an overall difference between the 2 groups on the fall risk factors (Wilk's lambda = 0.769, p =.018). Dominant quadriceps strength and composite balance score were, respectively, 18% significantly less and 11% worse in women with osteoporosis than those without. Functional mobility was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions. This study highlights older women with osteoporosis as a high fracture risk group due to having both lower bone density, and possibly, higher fall risk compared with their age-matched counterparts without osteoporosis. Both fall risk screening and fall risk reduction may be prudent to prevent fractures in women with osteoporosis.
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) | 0.002 | 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".