Balance Impairment as a Risk Factor for Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Who Are High Functioning: A Prospective Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening should have simple and easy-to-administer methods that identify impairments associated with future fall risk, but there is a lack of literature supporting validation for their use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the independent contribution of balance assessment on future fall risk, using 5 methods to quantify balance impairment, for the outcomes "any fall" and "any injurious fall" in community-dwelling older adults who are higher functioning. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: A sample of 210 community-dwelling older adults (70% male, 30% female; mean age=79.9 years, SD=4.7) received a comprehensive geriatric assessment at baseline, which included the Berg Balance Scale to measure balance. Information on daily falls was collected for 12 months by each participant's monthly submission of a falls log calendar. RESULTS: Seventy-eight people (43%) fell, of whom 54 (30%) sustained an injurious fall and 32 (18%) had recurrent falls (> or =2 falls). Different balance measurement methods identified different numbers of people as impaired. Adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates for an increased risk of any fall were 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.06, 2.35) for self-report of balance problems, 1.58 (95% CI=1.03, 2.41) for one-leg stance, and 1.46 (95% CI=1.02, 2.09) for limits of stability. An adjusted RR estimate for an increased risk of an injurious fall of 1.95 (95% CI=1.15, 3.31) was found for self-report of balance problems. Limitations The study was a secondary analysis of data. CONCLUSIONS: Not all methods of evaluating balance impairment are associated with falls. The number of people identified as having balance impairment varies with the measurement tool; therefore, the measurement tools are not interchangeable or equivalent in defining an at-risk population. The thresholds established in this study indicate individuals who should receive further comprehensive fall assessment and treatment to prevent falls.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it