Machine Learning Approach on Evaluating Predictive Factors of Fall-Related Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, falls account for 95% of all hip fractures in Canada; 20% of fall-related injury cases end in death. This thesis evaluates the predictive power of many variables to predict fall-related injuries. The dataset chosen was CCHS which is high dimensional and diverse. The use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and random forest was employed to determine the highest priority risk factors to include in the predictive model. The results show that it is possible to predict fall-related injuries with a sensitivity of 80% or higher using four predictors (frequency of consultations with medical doctor, food and vegetable consumption, height and monthly physical activity level of over 15 minutes). Alternatively, the same sensitivity can be reached using age, frequency of walking for exercise per 3 months, alcohol consumption and personal income. None of the predictive models reached an accuracy of 70% or higher. Further work in studying nutritional diets that offer protection from incurring a fall related injury are also recommended. Since the predictors are behavioral determinants of health and have a high sensitivity but a low accuracy, population health interventions are recommended rather than individual-level interventions. Suggestions to improve accuracy of built models are also proposed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".