Sex Differences in Subsequent Falls and Falls Risk: A Prospective Cohort Study in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sex differences for subsequent falls and falls risk factors in community-dwelling older adults who have fallen are unknown. Our aim was to: (1) compare the number of falls between sexes, (2) identify modifiable falls risk factors, and (3) explore the interaction of sex on falls risk factors in older adults who fall. METHODS: Four hundred sixty-two community dwellers seeking medical attention after an index fall were recruited from the Vancouver Falls Prevention Clinic and participated in this 12-month prospective cohort study. Ninety-six participants were part of a randomized controlled trial of exercise. Falls were tracked with monthly falls calendars. Demographics, falls risk measures, and the number of subsequent falls were compared between sexes. A principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to reduce the falls risk measures to a smaller set of factors. The PCA factors were used in negative binomial regression models to predict the number of subsequent falls. Age, exposure time (i.e., number of falls monitoring days), and prescribed exercise (yes/no) were used as covariates, and sex (male/female) and PCA factors were used as main effects. The interaction of sex by PCA factor was then included. RESULTS: Males fell more over 12 months (males: 2.80 ± 6.86 falls; females: 1.25 ± 2.63 falls) than females, and poorer executive function predicted falls in males. Four PCA factors were defined - impaired cognition and mobility, low mood and self-efficacy, mobility resilience, and perceived poor health - each predicted the number of falls. The sex by mobility resilience interaction suggested that mobility resilience was less protective of falls in males. CONCLUSION: Modifiable risk factors related to cognition, physical function, psychological wellbeing, and health status predicted subsequent falls. In males, better mobility was not as protective of falls compared with females. This may be due to males' poorer executive function, contributing to decreased judgement or slowed decision-making during mobility. These results may inform efficacious sex-specific falls prevention strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".