Fall-related injury among people with arthritis, a concern among different age groups!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: The association between arthritis and falls has been study mainly in older adults, and information about fall-related injuries and arthritis in younger population is scarce. In addition, there is a gap of knowledge about the activities and types of injury associated with falls among people with arthritis in different age groups. The aims of the study were: 1) to explore the association between arthritis and fall-related injury among different age groups, and 2) to compare the main activity associated with fall-related injury and the type of injury resulted from falls between age groups in people with arthritis.Methods: This study used aggregated data from the Canadian Community Health Survey for the years 2001, 2003, 2005, 2009/2010 and 2013/2014.Results: People with arthritis were significantly more likely to report fall-related injuries than people without arthritis across all age groups. Younger people (12-19 years) were over six times more likely to fall when practicing sports, whereas all adults were more likely to slip/trip/stumble while walking. As a result of the falls, older adults (65 and over) were more likely to have broken bones and other kind of injuries (i.e., bruises, cuts, etc.), while all younger age groups reported more strains/sprains.Conclusion: Fall-related injury is a concern across all age groups in people with arthritis, and not only among older adults. In addition, the activities performed when the fall occurred and the type of injuries resulted from the falls were different between age groups. These findings contribute to reduce the gap of knowledge about fall-related injuries among people with arthritis in different age groups.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".