Biomechanical Parameters and Clinical Assessment Scores for Identifying Elderly Fallers Based on Balance and Dynamic Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accidental falls are a major health concern among older adults. Currently, fall prevention programs employ clinical assessment scores for identifying elderly fallers based on cut-off values. Biomechanical parameters provide crucial information differentiating pathological gait and posture and can be used to classify elderly fallers and non-fallers. Pattern recognition models based on biomechanical parameters may provide greater insight for such classification. The purpose of this study was to compare the classification accuracy of different pattern recognition models for identifying elderly fallers using biomechanical parameters measured during balance and gait tasks. Pattern recognition models were also developed using clinical assessment scores and compared to the models based on biomechanical parameters for accurately identifying elderly fallers. Participants included 58 non-fallers (age = 72.3 ± 5.7) and 41 fallers (age = 74.0 ± 12.3) who performed balance and gait tasks on a walkway with embedded force plates and pressure mats. The parameters included 2D ground reaction force (GRF), center of pressure (COP), and the plantar pressure (PP). Using this data as input, different classification algorithms were used to build models. Maximum accuracy of 86.02% for classifying faller/non-faller categories was obtained using a classifier based on biomechanical parameters from combined gait and balance tasks. The GRF parameters ranked higher than COP and PP parameters based on F-score ranking suggesting predictor importance of GRF parameters. The classification performance was further improved by adding GRF parameters to the more commonly used COP parameters. However, the classifiers based on clinical assessment scores resulted in a maximum accuracy of 92.93% suggesting that elderly fallers can be accurately classified using pattern recognition models based on clinical assessment scores.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".