MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410400311 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.05.012

Falls and Fear of Falling After Stroke: A Case‐Control Study

2016· article· en· W2410400311 on OpenAlex
Hui‐Ting Goh, Mohanasuntharaam Nadarajah, Norhamizan Hamzah, Parimalaganthi Varadan, Maw Pin Tan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFear of fallingStroke (engine)MedicineBalance (ability)Physical therapyPoison controlFalling (accident)Logistic regressionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInjury preventionFall preventionBerg Balance ScalePopulationPsychiatryInternal medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Falls are common after stroke, with potentially serious consequences. Few investigations have included age-matched control participants to directly compare fall characteristics between older adults with and without stroke. Further, fear of falling, a significant psychological consequence of falls, has only been examined to a limited degree as a risk factor for future falls in a stroke population. OBJECTIVE: To compare the fall history between older adults with and without a previous stroke and to identify the determinants of falls and fear of falling in older stroke survivors. DESIGN: Case-control observational study. SETTING: Primary teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five patients with stroke (mean age ± standard deviation, 66 ± 7 years) and 50 age-matched control participants with no previous stroke were tested. METHODS: test was performed to compare characteristics between groups, and logistic regression was performed to determine the risk factors for falls and fear of falling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fall events in the past 12 months, Fall Efficacy Scale-International, Berg Balance Scale, Functional Ambulation Category, Fatigue Severity Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Patient Healthy Questionnaire-9 were measured for all participants. Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment was used to quantify severity of stroke motor impairments. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients and 13 control participants reported at least one fall in the past 12 months (P = .58). Nine participants with stroke had recurrent falls (≥2 falls) compared with none of the control participants (P < .01). Participants with stroke reported greater concern for falling than did nonstroke control participants (P < .01). Female gender was associated with falls in the nonstroke group, whereas falls in the stroke group were not significantly associated with any measured outcomes. Fear of falling in the stroke group was associated with functional ambulation level and balance. Functional ambulation level alone explained 22% of variance in fear of falling in the stroke group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with persons without a stroke, patients with stroke were significantly more likely to experience recurrent falls and fear of falling. Falls in patients with stroke were not explained by any of the outcome measures used, whereas fear of falling was predicted by functional ambulation level. This study has identified potentially modifiable risk factors with which to devise future prevention strategies for falls in patients with stroke. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.322 · 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