Risk-taking behaviors and falls in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this proposed scoping review are to systematically identify the risk-taking behaviors in community-dwelling older adults as well as the methods used to identify these behaviors. This review explores predisposing factors to fall-related, risk-taking behaviors in community-dwelling older adults. INTRODUCTION: Most falls occur as a result of complex interactions between fall risk factors. Research has identified the role of mobility and environmental factors in falls; however, little is known about the role of risk-taking behaviors on falls. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that explore fall-related, risk-taking behaviors in community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years) will be included for this review. Studies will be considered if they are conducted in a research laboratory or community-based setting. Hospital settings will be considered if the study discusses risk-taking in community-based settings. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search will be completed in Ovid AMED, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCOhost CINAHL and EBSCOhost AgeLine. Only studies published from the year 2000 onward will be considered for inclusion. Studies published in English and French will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts to identify studies for full review. The full texts will then be independently reviewed by the same reviewers to assess eligibility, with a third reviewer available to resolve disagreements. A data extraction tool will be used to extract the data from the studies that meet full eligibility criteria. Data extracted from the texts will be synthesized and reported in table format accompanied by a narrative summary that will connect the results the objective of the scoping review. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/r9f7v.
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 | 0.105 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.013 |
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".