Fear of falling: scoping review and topic analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fear of falling (FoF) is a major challenge for the quality of life among older adults. Despite extensive work in previous scoping and systematic reviews on separate domains of FoF and interventions related to FoF, very little attention has been devoted to a comprehensive scoping review mapping the range and scope of this burgeoning area of study, with only a few exceptions. This scoping review aims to provide an overarching review mapping FoF research by identifying main topics, gaps in the literature and potential opportunities for bridging different strains of research on FoF. Such a comprehensive scoping review will allow the subsequent creation of an interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical framework, which may help push forward policy and practice innovations for people living with FoF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), seven main databases will be searched from 2000 to the date of the start of the review: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science. The review will include original research in English, published between 2000 and January 2023. Quality checks will be conducted collegially. Data will be extracted and analysed using PRISMA-ScR charting tools and conventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for the review. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic conferences. The outcomes will be disseminated through social media, opinion pieces and science communication platforms to reach a wider audience. REGISTRATION: The scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/gyzjq).
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 | 0.121 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.023 |
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".