Validity of the 8-Foot Up and Go, Timed Up and Go, and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale in older adults with and without cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether (1) mild cognitive impairment (MCI) alters the validity of the Timed Up and Go (TUG), the 8-Foot Up and Go (8UG), or the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale in the identification of fallers and nonfallers and (2) there were differences in the concurrent validity between the TUG and ABC when compared with the 8UG and ABC in those with and without MCI.. The classification of MCI was based on a score of <26 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. For the 62 participants enrolled, excellent correlations were demonstrated in pairwise comparisons between the outcome measures (on a continuous scale). Based on frequently cited cutpoints, the sensitivity of the TUG was only 20% with a specificity of 94.6% and the sensitivity of the 8UG was 64% with a specificity of 75.7%. The TUG identified fallers at significantly different rates than the 8UG and the ABC (p < 0.05). For this reason, the 8UG is recommended as a more appropriate outcome measure for identifying fall risk in community-dwelling older adults. Fall history was found as the only significant predictor of test outcome for the TUG, 8UG, and ABC, indicating that MCI is not a significant determinant of test performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".