MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150725604 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20100380

Understanding Falls in Multiple Sclerosis: Association of Mobility Status, Concerns About Falling, and Accumulated Impairments

2011· article· en· W2150725604 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Noritake Matsuda, Anne Shumway‐Cook, Marcia A. Ciol, Charles H. Bombardier, Deborah Kartin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalling (accident)Fear of fallingCross-sectional studyMultiple sclerosisInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlOccupational safety and healthPsychologyGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Falls in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are a serious health concern, and the percentage of people who restrict their activity because of concerns about falling (CAF) is not known. Mobility function and accumulated impairments are associated with fall risk in older adults but not in people with stroke and have not been studied in people with MS. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to estimate the percentage of people who have MS and report falling, CAF, and activity restrictions related to CAF; (2) to examine associations of these factors with fall status; and (3) to explore associations of fall status with mobility function and number of accumulated impairments. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. METHODS: A total of 575 community-dwelling people with MS provided information about sociodemographics, falls, CAF, activity restrictions related to CAF, mobility function, and accumulated impairments. Chi-square statistics were used to explore associations among these factors. RESULTS: In all participants, about 62% reported CAF and about 67% reported activity restrictions related to CAF. In participants who did not experience falls, 25.9% reported CAF and 27.7% reported activity restrictions related to CAF. Mobility function was associated with fall status; participants reporting moderate mobility restrictions reported the highest percentage of falls, and participants who were nonwalkers (ie, had severely limited self-mobility) reported the lowest percentage. Falls were associated with accumulated impairments; the participants who reported the highest percentage of 2 or more falls were those with 10 impairments. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional study relied on self-reported falls, mobility, and impairment status, which were not objectively verified. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAF and activity restrictions related to CAF were common in people with MS and were reported by people who experienced falls and those who did not. The association of fall status with mobility function did not appear to be linear. Fall risk increased with declining mobility function; however, at a certain threshold, further declines in mobility function were associated with fewer falls, possibly because of reduced fall risk exposure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.116 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations178
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207