MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313991519 · doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.1066913

Prognostic accuracy of the one-legged balance test in predicting falls: 15-years of midlife follow-up in a British birth cohort study

2023· article· en· W4313991519 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joanna M. Blodgett, Rebecca Hardy, Daniel Davis, Geeske Peeters, Mark Hamer, Diana Kuh, Rachel Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sports and Active Living · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsBalance (ability)MedicineBalance testCohortCohort studyDemographyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The one-legged balance test is a common screening tool for fall risk. Yet, there is little empirical evidence assessing its prognostic ability. The study aims were to assess the prognostic accuracy of one-legged balance performance in predicting falls and identify optimal cut-points to classify those at greater risk. Methods: Data from up to 2,000 participants from a British birth cohort born in 1,946 were used. The times an individual could stand on one leg with their eyes open and closed were recorded (max: 30 s) at ages 53 and 60-64. Number of falls in the past year was self-reported at ages 53, 60-64 and 68; recurrent falls (0-1 vs. 2+) and any fall (0 vs. 1+) were considered binary outcomes. Four longitudinal associations between balance times and subsequent falls were investigated (age 53 → 60-64; age 53 → 68; age 60-64 → 68; age 53 & 60-64 → 68). For each temporal association, areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated and compared for a base sex-only model, a sex and balance model, a sex and fall history model and a combined model of sex, balance and fall history. The Liu method was used to identify optimal cut-points and sensitivity, specificity, and AUC at corresponding cut-points. Results: Median eyes open balance time was 30 s at ages 53 and 60-64; median eyes closed balance times were 5 s and 3 s, respectively. The predictive ability of balance tests in predicting either fall outcome was poor (AUC range for sex and balance models: 0.577-0.600). Prognostic accuracy consistently improved by adding fall history to the model (range: 0.604-0.634). Optimal cut-points ranged from 27 s to 29 s for eyes open and 3 s to 5 s for eyes closed; AUC consistently indicated that using "optimal" cut-points to dichotomise balance time provided no discriminatory ability (AUC range:0.42-0.47), poor sensitivity (0.38-0.61) and poor specificity (0.23-0.56). Discussion: Despite previous observational evidence showing associations between better one-legged balance performance and reduced fall risk, the one-legged balance test had limited prognostic accuracy in predicting recurrent falls. This contradicts ongoing translation of this test into clinical screening tools for falls and highlights the need to consider new and existing screening tools that can reliably predict fall risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sports and Active LivingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207