Prevention of Falls in Parkinson's Disease: Guidelines and Gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: People living with Parkinson's disease (PD) have a high risk for falls. Objective: To examine gaps in falls prevention targeting people with PD as part of the Task Force on Global Guidelines for Falls in Older Adults. Methods: A Delphi consensus process was used to identify specific recommendations for falls in PD. The current narrative review was conducted as educational background with a view to identifying gaps in fall prevention. Results: A recent Cochrane review recommended exercises and structured physical activities for PD; however, the types of exercises and activities to recommend and PD subgroups likely to benefit require further consideration. Freezing of gait, reduced gait speed, and a prior history of falls are risk factors for falls in PD and should be incorporated in assessments to identify fall risk and target interventions. Multimodal and multi-domain fall prevention interventions may be beneficial. With advanced or complex PD, balance and strength training should be administered under supervision. Medications, particularly cholinesterase inhibitors, show promise for falls prevention. Identifying how to engage people with PD, their families, and health professionals in falls education and implementation remains a challenge. Barriers to the prevention of falls occur at individual, environmental, policy, and health system levels. Conclusion: Effective mitigation of fall risk requires specific targeting and strategies to reduce this debilitating and common problem in PD. While exercise is recommended, the types and modalities of exercise and how to combine them as interventions for different PD subgroups (cognitive impairment, freezing, advanced disease) need further study.
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 | 0.025 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".