MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142348986 · doi:10.1177/0898264313507317

Severity of Fall-Based Injuries, Fear of Falling, and Activity Restriction

2013· article· en· W2142348986 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel M. LeBouthillier, Michel A. Thibodeau, Gordon J. G. Asmundson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFear of fallingFalling (accident)OddsInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionOdds ratioFall preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychological interventionDemographyGerontologyPsychologyLogistic regressionPsychiatryMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how different fall-based injuries relate to fear of falling and activity restriction, and if these relationships differ between sexes. We explored fear of falling and activity restriction in individuals who have experienced fall-based injuries. METHODS: A total of 16,369 older adults from the Canadian Community Health Survey reported their worst fall-based injury, whether they experience fear of falling, and whether they restrict activities from fear of falling. RESULTS: Females had greater odds of fear of falling than males. Only females who experienced a fracture or head injury had increased odds of fear of falling and only females who experienced a head injury had increased odds of restricting activities compared with females who fell without injury. DISCUSSION: Only severe fall-based injuries are associated with fear of falling and activity restriction, and this relationship is unique to females. Sex differences warrant further investigation and suggest a need for targeted interventions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207