Association of Fear of Falling With Cognition and Physical Function in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".