Connection between competence, usability, environment and risk of falls in elderly adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine connections between competence, usability, environment and risk of falls in elderly adults. METHOD: Correlational descriptive study, 123 elderly adults, both male and female, aged 70 years and older were included. Data was collected via the Tinetti Scale, CESD-7 Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Usability Questionnaire on Housing and Housing Enabler; and sociodemographic and health background certificate data. For data analysis, descriptive and inferential statistics were used, multivariate linear and logistic regression models were adjusted. RESULTS: 42.0% of the elderly adults had presented with falls, with a higher prevalence in women, and in the group of 70-75 years. The physical environment of the house, gait, and usability were set as risk factors for falls. A negative relationship between usability and depressive symptoms, cognitive health, balance, gait, the social and physical environment was found, p <0.05; and a strong positive correlation between walking and balance, p <0.05. CONCLUSION: This study helps to better understand the phenomenon of falling, to find a connection between usability with the risk of falls, and other variables.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".