Risk Factors for Falls and Fragility Fractures in Community-Dwelling Seniors: A One-Year Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective . To evaluate risk factors for falls and fragility fractures in healthy seniors. Methods . Assessing 50 ambulatory community-dwelling volunteers ≥65 for demographics, BMI, bone mineral density (BMD) (DEXA), fracture risk (FRAX), balance (Biodex), fear of falling (Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES)), and activity level (RAPA). One-year followup was done through phone interviews. Results . Most participants (17 males, 33 females; mean age 72.0 ± 5.5 years) had normal BMD and were active with little to no fear of falling. Balance did not correlate with FRAX or fear of falling. Activity level did not correlate with FRAX, but the active group had less fear of falling. Most scored below age specific norms on balance testing. Fear of falling was not significantly different between genders but did correlate with FRAX, indicating that patients with higher fracture risk were also more afraid of falling. Individuals who fell after one year had increased fear of falling and decreased activity levels. Conclusions . Community-dwelling seniors with higher risk of future fractures were more afraid of falling. Although healthy and active, this cohort had poor balance compared to age matched norms. Further research on how to best assess fall risk and improve balance to prevent fractures is needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".