A Case-control Study Examining the Characteristics of Patients who Fall in an Inpatient Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to describe the characteristics of patients who fall in the inpatient traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitation setting. SETTING: Specialized inpatient TBI rehabilitation unit. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four patients with history of falls and 55 nonequivalent patients without history of falls. DESIGN: Retrospective nonequivalent case-control study. MAIN MEASURES: The Functional Independence Measure, Glasgow Coma Scale, Westmead Post-traumatic Amnesia Scale, demographic and functional characteristics, and behavior and medication variables. RESULTS: No significant difference between patients with and without history of falls for age, sex, medication class or total number of medications administered on admission, and median admission Westmead Post-traumatic Amnesia Scale score was observed. Patients with history of falls had a significantly longer duration of post-traumatic amnesia, rehabilitation length of stay, and lower mean total admission Functional Independence Measure score and median Glasgow Coma Scale score at the time of injury. Patients with history of falls were more than 10 times more likely than patients without history of falls to require assistance on admission for activities of daily living, transfers, and continence/toileting. Neurobehaviors including noncompliance and anosognosia were significantly associated with patients with history of falls. CONCLUSIONS: A patient in the rehabilitation setting with a more severe TBI characterized by multisystem impairments is at an increased risk of falling, whereas some traditional fall risk factors were not associated with patients who fall. Rehabilitation settings should consider cohort-specific fall risk profiling. The Ontario STRATIFY Falls Risk Screening Tool is perhaps not the best tool to screen for falls in this inpatient population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".