Risk Factors for Falls in Individuals With Lower Extremity Amputations During the Pre‐Prosthetic Phase: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls in individuals with lower limb amputations (LLAs) pose significant health concerns. The literature is limited regarding falls during the preprosthetic phase of rehabilitation for persons with LLAs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of falls and identify factors associated with falls during the preprosthetic recovery phase. DESIGN: Retrospective chart audit. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation program. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred forty individuals with LLAs (age ± SD = 61.93 ± 14.53 years, 73.18% male) who attended inpatient rehabilitation from 26 July 2011 to 21 August 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The number of self-reported falls was recorded from the time of surgery to admission for inpatient rehabilitation. Outcomes of interest were any fall (1+ fall) and recurrent falls (2+ falls). A retrospective chart audit was performed on consecutive admissions to an inpatient rehabilitation program. RESULTS: The incidence of falls was 8.37 per 1000 patient-days. Falls were sustained by 60.9% of the sample. Unilateral transtibial amputation was independently associated with an increased risk of recurrent falls (relative risk [RR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-2.23, P = .008). Diabetes mellitus was independently associated with an increased risk of any fall (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-.38, P = .03). Finally, bilateral transtibial amputation was independently associated with a reduced risk of any fall (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the current literature, diabetes mellitus and a unilateral transtibial amputation were risk factors for falling, whereas a bilateral transtibial amputation and increasing age presented new findings as factors associated with decreased falling. 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".