Age and Sex Differences in Balance Outcomes among Individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) at Risk of Falls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No previous research has examined age and sex differences in balance outcomes in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of falls. A secondary analysis of baseline data from an ongoing trial of fall prevention in COPD was conducted. Age and sex differences were analyzed for the Berg Balance scale (BBS), Balance Evaluation System Test (BEST test) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC). Overall, 223 individuals with COPD were included. Females had higher balance impairments than males [BBS: mean (SD) = 47 (8) vs. 49 (6) points; BEST test: 73 (16) vs. 80 (16) points], and a lower confidence to perform functional activities [ABC = 66 (21) vs. 77 (19)]. Compared to a younger age (50–65 years) group, age >65 years was moderately associated with poor balance control [BBS (r = − 0.37), BEST test (r = − 0.33)] and weakly with the ABC scale (r = − 0.13). After controlling for the effect of balance risk factors, age, baseline dyspnea index (BDI), and the 6-min walk test (6-MWT) explained 38% of the variability in the BBS; age, sex, BDI, and 6-MWT explained 40% of the variability in the BEST test; And BDI and the 6-MWT explained 44% of the variability in the ABC scale. This study highlights age and sex differences in balance outcomes among individuals with COPD at risk of falls. Recognition of these differences has implications for pulmonary rehabilitation and fall prevention in COPD, particularly among females and older adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".