Fall risk in older adults mediates the association between depression, executive dysfunction and daily life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The present study aimed to identify signs of frequent fall-related body dysfunction (depression/cognition) as exhibited in daily activities among older adults. The role of fall risk in mediating body dysfunction and daily activities was also explored. Method: Participants included 123 non-institutionalised older adults. Depression and cognitive status were measured by the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Fall risk was determined by a questionnaire, supported by the Time Up and Go test (TUG). Executive functions (EF) were assessed by the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) and the Alternate Executive Function Performance Test medication management performance-based assessment. Daily life measures included the Barthel and Instrumental scale of activities of daily living, and World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire. Results: Based on a falls risk score, 39 out of 123 participants (32%) were high-risk fallers. High-risk fallers showed greater body dysfunction, as recognised in daily activities. Structural equation modelling (SEM) revealed that fall risk mediated the associations among depression, executive dysfunction and daily activities. Conclusion: Emotional and cognitive dysfunctions that affect people with high fall risk may manifest while older people perform daily activities. Community fall prevention programmes should screen for such fall-related dysfunction and provide strategies to minimise falls and enhance daily function.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".