The Relationship of the Risk of Falls with the Features of Cognitive Function and Emotional Status (Fear of Falls) in Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess the frequency of falls, the relationship between fear of falling and the risk of falls in people aged 60 years and older. Material and methods. The open cross-sectional study included 51 outpatients (49 women, 2 men) aged 61 to 90 [70 (67; 75)] years. A conventional physical examination, clinical and biochemical blood tests, screening for fragility (the “Age is not a hindrance” questionnaire), the risk of falls (history, the “Get up and go” test), fear of falls (“Short scale for assessing the fear of falls”, “Scale of effectiveness falls”), assessment of cognitive function (CF) — Montreal scale of cognitive assessment — MoCa-test). Results. A high risk of senile asthenia was found in 38 %, preasthenia — in 31 %, a history of falls — in 75 %, fear of falls — in 78 %, impaired CF — in 49 % (MOCA 24.3±2.9 points) of patients. An association was found between fear of falls and history of falls (odds ratio [OR] 9.92, p=0.003, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.20-44.63), 2 or more comorbidities (OR 10.86, p=0.013, 95 % CI 1,66- 71,09); between the “Get up and go” test for more than 10 seconds and MOCA less than 25 points (OR 8.57, p=0.001, CI 2.4-30.3); scores less than 25 on the Fall Effectiveness Scale and MOCA (OR 5.6, p=0.018, CI 1.34-23.36). The optimal value of the “Get up and walk” test for predicting falls was 10.5 seconds or more (area under the curve 0.753±0.083, p=0.019), the MOCA test was 24.5 points or less (area under the curve 0.792±0.065, p <0.001); the fall effectiveness scale for predicting fear of falls — 72.5 points or more (area under the curve 0.743±0.092, p=0.014); test “Get up and go” — 9.5 seconds or more (area under the curve 0.708±0.098, p=0.036). Conclusion. Fear of falls was associated with a history of falls, соmorbidity, low functional activity, and a decrease in CF, which confirms the multifactorial origin of the fear of falls in older age and requires consideration in the development of comprehensive treatment and prevention programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".