Time Requirement for Young and Elderly Women to Move Into a Position for Breaking a Fall With Outstretched Hands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk for hip fracture during a fall is reduced by contacting the ground first with the outstretched hands. However, it is unclear whether the time required for young and elderly individuals to move the hands into a protective position exceeds that available during a typical fall. METHODS: We tested whether young (n = 30; aged 18-35 years) and elderly women (n = 30; aged 70-88 years) differed in the time required to move their hands into a protective position for breaking a fall. Participants stood either facing or sideways to shoulder-height targets (simulating forward and sideways falls, respectively), which they were instructed to contact as quickly as possible after hearing an aural go cue. Total contact time was partitioned into reaction time and movement time. RESULTS: Young women contacted the targets faster than elderly women in both forward (530 +/- 60 vs 615 +/- 88 ms; p <.001) and sideways trials (658 +/- 80 vs 799 +/- 145 ms; p <.001). This difference was due to faster movement times for young participants. There was no difference between groups in reaction time. CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have shown that during actual falls from standing, wrist and pelvis contact occur at 680 +/- 116 and 715 +/- 160 ms, respectively. Comparing these values to our results suggests that the typical elderly woman should be able to move her hands quickly enough to break a forward fall, but not a sideways fall.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".