Neck pain, concerns of falling and physical performance in community-dwelling Danish citizens over 75 years of age: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the associations between neck pain, concerns of falling and physical performance in older people. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 423 community-dwelling Danes aged 75 years and older. Measures consisted of self-reported neck pain, physical performance (Short Physical Performance Battery), self-reported psychological concerns related to falling (Falls Efficacy Scale International), depression (Major Depression Inventory), cognitive function (Mini Mental State Examination), self-reported low-back pain and self-reported history of falls. Associations between neck pain and fear of falling were determined using multivariable logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: Bothersome neck pain that limits daily activities is significantly associated with concerns of falling (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-7.03) and impaired physical performance (unadjusted OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.09-4.69). However, these relationships became nonsignificant after adjusting for potential confounders. Bothersome neck pain and concerns of falling is attenuated by depression, and the relationship between bothersome neck pain and decreased physical performance is attenuated by concerns of falling, depression and previous history of falls. CONCLUSIONS: Bothersome neck pain in older people is associated with increased concerns of falling and decreased physical performance that are two known risk factors for falls in older people. However, these relationships are complicated by other variables, particularly depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".