The association between sedentary behavior and falls in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It is generally believed that sedentary behavior (SB) increases the risk of falls among older adults, but the evidence for it remains inconsistent and scarce. Purpose Our study aims to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence regarding the association of SB with falls in older adults. Method A comprehensive search strategy was conducted using several online databases from 1906 to March 2022. Cohort studies both concerning the association between SB and falls and involving participants over 60 years old were regarded as eligible for inclusion. Evidence was pooled by a random-effects meta-analysis. Quality assessment for individual studies was performed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results Altogether seven publications were identified, and the age of the 24,750 individuals involved ranging from 60 to 99 years old. Overall quality of the included studies was rated as moderate-to-high quality. We found that SB was significantly associated with increased risk of falls compared with non-SB among older adults [Odds ratio (OR) = 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–1.28; I 2 = 46.90%, P heterogeneity = 0.07, random model]. Subgroup analyses that stratified the studies according to NOS score showed significant differences between groups. Subgroup analysis stratified by SB measurement, sample size, region, publication year, and follow-up duration showed no significant differences between groups. Conclusion The findings provide reliable support for the hypothesis that sedentary lifestyles are strong predictors of falls among older adults, offering critical indications to develop strategies for fall prevention.
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".