Circumstances and Factors Associated With Falls Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Diagnosed With Heart Disease Using the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To identify the circumstances of falls and the factors associated with falls among older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Baseline (2012) data from the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS), a cross-sectional study, were used. Falling was measured by the subjective question, "Have you fallen in the last 12 months?" Several subjective questions were asked to obtain information about the circumstances of falls. Potential clinical factors associated with falling were cognitive status, depressive symptoms, physical performance, grip strength, visual acuity, and fear of falling (FOF). These clinical factors were measured respectively with the Leganes Cognitive Test, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Scales Depressive Symptoms, the Short Physical Performance Battery, a Jamar handgrip dynamometer, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) tumbling E chart placed at 2 m, and the Falls Efficacy Scale-International. A χ 2 test was used to determine whether there were significant differences in fall circumstances among older adults with and without CVD. Two-sample t tests were used to test for any significant differences between older adults with and without CVD. Bonferroni correction was applied to limit type I errors and was corrected to .007. Simple and multiple logistic regressions identified which clinical factors were associated with falling. RESULTS: A total of 429 older adults with CVD (mean age 69.5 ± 2.9) and 431 older adults without CVD (69.2 ± 2.9) participated in the study. Approximately 53% of fallers with CVD had 2 or more falls compared with fallers without CVD (39%). The most common location for falling was at home (43%) for fallers with CVD or in the street (50%) for fallers without CVD. Approximately 9% of fallers with CVD needed to be hospitalized while only 3% of fallers without CVD were admitted to the hospital. Approximately 42% of fallers with CVD had some residual sequelae (eg, being unable to walk around the house or do housework) compared with only 27% of fallers without CVD. Fallers with CVD had significantly ( P value < .007) more depressive symptoms (mean ± SD, 14.7 ± 12.9) and poorer physical performance (8.4 ± 3.0) compared with fallers without CVD (10.1 ± 9.4 and 9.6 ± 2.5, respectively); however FOF was the only significant clinical factor ( P value < .05) associated with falling for older adults with CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of recurrent falls is higher among older adults with CVD than those without CVD. Circumstances of falls among fallers with CVD differ from those identified among fallers without CVD. Fear of falling was the only predictor of fall history among older adults with CVD. The results suggest the merit of considering FOF when designing prevention and intervention programs to reduce falls among older adults with CVD.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it