MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2188270922

Falls, medications and balance among residents in long-term care institutions

2012· article· en· W2188270922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lina Spirgienė, Pirkko Routasalo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term careMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Balance (ability)GerontologyDemographyFamily medicinePhysical therapyNursingGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate prevalence of falls, use of medications and balance among the residents in longterm care institutions. Methods. Every third resident from 8 long-term care institutions in Kaunas region was included in the study, totally 252 residents. Questionnaire interRAI LTCF (Long Term Care Facility) version 2006 (09) was used for the data collection. Results. More than one quarter (28.2%) of the residents fell down during the last 30 days. Most of the residents (38.1%) were prescribed with 2–3 medications. Benzodiazepines were one of the most frequently used medications (27.0%) in our study (respectively female 30.4% and male 21.3%). Falls possibility among residents was increased by unsteady gait (OR = 9.164, p = 0.001), dizziness (OR = 13.453, p = 0.015), and difficulties move self to stand position unassisted (OR = 13.453, p = 0.008). Conclusions. The findings support the view that falls could be avoided through rational use of drugs and appropriated management of balance in long term care institutions in Lithuania.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→