NOVEL INSIGHTS ON THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CLINICAL AND GAIT MEASURES FOR DETECTING FALL RISK IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We sought to extend recent research that explored model-based approaches for combining clinical and gait measures to determine the most sensitive grouping for retrospectively classifying fallers from non-fallers which resulted in a model with 92% sensitivity and 66% specificity and an overall model of 83%. In the present study, the clinical assessment battery was augmented by incorporating more challenging balance items while removing clinical measures characterized by ceiling effects and restricted range. Thirty-two community-dwelling older adults (>70yrs, 16 fallers, 16 non-fallers) completed a battery comprising 76 measures of more challenging clinical measures of mobility and balance, and retained gait (GaitRITE), postural sway and physiological measures. Within each domain, highly collinear and theoretically-redundant measures were removed. Next, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) identified those clinical and gait variables that accounted for the most unique variance. Finally, a backward stepwise logistic regression was performed on the reduced set of variables from the PCA to develop predictive equations. The current analysis yielded improved specificity of 75%, but slightly lower sensitivity 81%. Interestingly, when the results for the PCA from the previous study were used with the current data, the model classified fallers with 87% sensitivity and 86% specificity and an overall model of 86%. Notably, in all analyses, gait variables were central in identifying fall risk, with single- vs. dual-task difference scores of particular predictive importance. The differences observed between the best-fitting models across the two cohorts implies that modelling methods should accommodate and harness individual differences (e.g., machine learning techniques).
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".