Validation of the Saskatoon Falls Prevention Consortium's Falls Screening and Referral Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the concurrent validity of the Saskatoon Falls Prevention Consortium's Falls Screening and Referral Algorithm (FSRA). METHOD: A total of 29 older adults (mean age 77.7 [SD 4.0] y) residing in an independent-living senior's complex who met inclusion criteria completed a demographic questionnaire and the components of the FSRA and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). The FSRA consists of the Elderly Fall Screening Test (EFST) and the Multi-factor Falls Questionnaire (MFQ); it is designed to categorize individuals into low, moderate, or high fall-risk categories to determine appropriate management pathways. A predictive model for probability of fall risk, based on previous research, was used to determine concurrent validity of the FSRI. RESULTS: The FSRA placed 79% of participants into the low-risk category, whereas the predictive model found the probability of fall risk to range from 0.04 to 0.74, with a mean of 0.35 (SD 0.25). No statistically significant correlation was found between the FSRA and the predictive model for probability of fall risk (Spearman's ρ=0.35, p=0.06). CONCLUSION: The FSRA lacks concurrent validity relative to to a previously established model of fall risk and appears to over-categorize individuals into the low-risk group. Further research on the FSRA as an adequate tool to screen community-dwelling older adults for fall risk is recommended.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".