Fear of Falling Predicts Incidence of Functional Disability 2 Years Later: A Perspective From an International Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To study the extent to which fear of falling (FOF) is associated with the onset of functional disability over a 2-year period in older adults using self-reported and performance-based measures. Methods: In 2012, 1,601 participants (aged 65-74 years) were recruited from four sites: Kingston and Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada; Manizales, Colombia; and Natal, Brazil. They were re-assessed in 2014. We quantified FOF using the Fall Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I; range: 16-64). Functional disability measures were (i) self-reported incident mobility disability, defined as difficulty climbing a flight of stairs or walking 400 m and (ii) incident poor physical performance, defined as a score <9 on the Short Physical Performance Battery. In the Poisson regression analysis, we included only those participants without functional disability at baseline to calculate incident risk ratios in 2014. Results: 1,355 participants completed the 2014 assessment, of which 917 and 1,078 had no mobility disability and poor physical performance at baseline, respectively. In 2014, 131 (14.3%), and 166 (15.4%) participants reported incident mobility disability and poor physical performance, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic, and health covariates, a one-point increase in FES-I at baseline was significantly associated with a 4% increase in the risk of reporting incident mobility disability (95% CI: 1.02-1.05) and a 3% increase in the risk of developing poor physical performance at follow up in the overall sample (95%CI: 1.01-1.05). Conclusions: FOF is associated with a higher risk of incident mobility disability and poor physical performance in a cohort of older adults. It is increasingly important to study FOF's effect on functional disability and to take necessary measures to prevent the transition to end-stage disability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".