MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333829678 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800000684

Risk Factors for Serious Falls Among Community-Based Seniors: Results from the National Population Health Survey

2002· article· en· W2333829678 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paula C. Fletcher, John P. Hirdes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsHomewood Research InstituteUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalling (accident)Population healthMedicineEnvironmental healthAffect (linguistics)PopulationContinuationGerontologyQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper examines factors associated with falling among approximately 3,100 individuals aged 65 and older who were participants in the 1994 National Population Health Survey (NPHS). The intent of the NPHS is to monitor the health of Canadians and risk factors that affect their health. Several factors were identified as increasing the risk of falling, such as advanced age, being female, certain medical conditions, medication use and impaired mobility. The results from this survey, conducted on a national level, confirm the findings of many studies utilizing smaller samples within individual communities. Continuation of the NPHS will aid in offering longitudinal data with respect to falls, and allow for establishing a temporal order prior to the fall event, in order to provide more definitive evidence with respect to risk factors for 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.

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)0.002
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 score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207