Validity of balance and mobility screening tests for assessing fall risk in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have balance impairments and an increased risk of falls. The psychometric properties of short balance tests to inform fall risk assessment in COPD are unknown. Our objective was to determine the validity (concurrent, convergent, and known-groups) of short balance and mobility tests for fall risk screening. Participants with COPD aged ≥ 60 years attended a single assessment. Correlation coefficients described the relationships between the Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief BESTest), Single-Leg Stance (SLS), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and Timed Up and Go Dual-Task (TUG-DT) tests, with the comprehensive Berg Balance Scale (BBS), chair-stand test, and measures of exercise tolerance, functional limitation, disability, and prognosis. Independent t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests were used to examine differences between groups with respect to fall risk. Receiver operating characteristic curves examined the ability of the screening tests to identify individuals with previous falls. A total of 86 patients with COPD completed the study (72.9 ± 6.8 years; forced expiratory volume in 1 second: 47.3 ± 20.3% predicted). The Brief BESTest identified individuals who reported a previous fall (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.715, p = 0.001), and the SLS showed borderline acceptable accuracy in identifying individuals with a fall history (AUC = 0.684, p = 0.004). The strongest correlations were found for the Brief BESTest and SLS with the BBS ( r = 0.80 and r = 0.72, respectively) and between the TUG and TUG-DT with the chair-stands test ( r = 0.73 and r = 0.70, respectively). The Brief BESTest and SLS show the most promise as balance screening tools for fall risk assessment in older adults with COPD. These tests should be further evaluated prospectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".