Can Backward Walking Speed Reserve Discriminate Older Adults at High Fall Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The authors examine whether community-dwelling older adults at high fall risk have lower backward walking speed reserve (WSR) than their healthy counterparts. Method: Twenty-one healthy older adults and 20 older adults at high fall risk performed five trials of forward walking at a self-selected and maximal pace. In addition, all participants walked backward at a self-selected pace, and 15 participants from each group walked backward at a maximal pace. WSR was calculated as the difference between maximal and self-selected walking speed. Comparisons between groups were made using a one-tailed independent samples t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test with an α value of 0.025. Results: Older adults at high fall risk were significantly slower during self-selected forward walking (11.7%; p = 0.006), maximal forward walking (15.5%; p = 0.001), self-selected backward walking (25.3%; p = 0.002), and maximal backward walking (23.8%; p = 0.006). Older adults at high fall risk showed a lesser forward WSR (25.4%; p = 0.03) and backward WSR (23.7%; p = 0.03). Conclusions: Backward WSR is not useful for discriminating between healthy older adults and older adults at high fall risk. The results imply that forward or backward walking speed rather than WSR might be a useful measure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".