MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283752614 · doi:10.1097/nnr.0000000000000608

Association of Fear of Falling With Cognition and Physical Function in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

2022· article· en· W4283752614 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbal fluency testCognitionPsychologyFear of fallingTest (biology)Grip strengthBalance (ability)Poison controlTimed Up and Go testTrail Making TestBoston Naming TestCognitive testAssociation (psychology)Injury preventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyNeuropsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fear of falling (FOF) might be associated with physical and cognitive function, but there is a lack of understanding of the specific relationship between the three variables. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to accurately investigate the association of FOF with cognitive and physical function in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Six hundred sixty-nine older adults (>60 years old) participated in this study. A self-report questionnaire collected information about demographic characteristics, lifestyle, and behavioral habits. FOF was evaluated through the Shortened Version of the Falls Efficacy Scale International. Global cognitive function and the subdomains of cognitive function (including memory, visual-spatial, language, attention, and executive function) were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale, the Auditory Verbal Learning Test, the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), the Verbal Fluency Test, and the Trail Making Test. Subjective memory complaints were assessed using the Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire. Physical function was evaluated by measuring muscle strength and balance ability, and muscle strength was indicated by hand grip strength. In contrast, balance was assessed using the Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounding factors, the linear or ordinal regression analysis showed that the values of hand grip strength, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and CDT were significantly and negatively correlated with the score of FOF. On the other hand, Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire and TUG Test values showed significant positive correlations with FOF scores. Moreover, compared with other cognitive or physical measures, the CDT and TUG Test values showed a greater association with the FOF scores. DISCUSSION: Low subjective or objective cognitive ability and low physical function, especially low visuospatial and balance ability, were positively associated with the risk of FOF in a community-dwelling older population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it