Falls-Related Self-Efficacy Is Independently Associated With Balance and Mobility in Older Women With Low Bone Mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is currently unknown whether falling is independently associated with measures of balance and mobility in older adults after accounting for relevant physiological functions. This cross-sectional study assessed the independent association of falls-related self-efficacy to balance and mobility after accounting for age, current physical activity, and performances in relevant physiological domains in 98 older women, aged 75-86 years, with low bone mass. METHODS: Falls-related self-efficacy was assessed by the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC Scale). Measures of balance and mobility included the 13-item Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB & M Scale) and gait speed under two conditions: normal-paced and fast-paced. Physiological assessment included postural sway, foot reaction time, dominant quadriceps and dorsiflexor strength, proprioception, tactile sensitivity, edge contrast sensitivity, and visual acuity. RESULTS: Falls-related self-efficacy was independently associated with both balance and mobility after accounting for age, current physical activity level, and performances in relevant physiological domains. Based on the standardized beta coefficients, the ABC Scale score was more associated with measures of balance and mobility than measures of physiological function. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the independent association of falls-related self-efficacy with physical performance in older women with low bone mass. Thus, clinicians may need to consider falls-related self-efficacy when assessing and treating balance and mobility in this population, and falls-related self-efficacy may be useful as a screening tool to identify those persons with impaired balance and mobility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".