Association Between Frailty and Head Impact Location After Ground-Level Fall in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are highly prevalent in older adults, and ground-level falls are the most frequent mechanism of injury. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether frailty was associated with head impact location among older patients who sustained a ground-level fall-related, mild TBI. The secondary objective was to measure the association between frailty and intracranial hemorrhages. METHODS: We conducted a planned sub-analysis of a prospective observational study in two urban university-affiliated emergency departments (EDs). Patients 65 years and older who sustained a ground-level fall-related, mild TBI were included if they consulted in the ED between January 2019 and June 2019. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Patients were stratified into the following three groups: robust (CFS score 1-3), vulnerable-frail (CFS score 4-6), and severely frail (CFS score 7-9). RESULTS: A total of 335 patients were included; mean ± SD age was 86.9 ± 8.1 years. In multivariable analysis, frontal impact was significantly increased in severely frail patients compared with robust patients (odds ratio [OR] 4.8 [95% CI 1.4-16.8]; p = 0.01). Intracranial hemorrhages were found in 6.2%, 7.5%, and 13.3% of robust, vulnerable-frail, and severely frail patients, respectively. The OR of intracranial hemorrhages was 1.24 (95% CI 0.44-3.45; p = 0.68) in vulnerable-frail patients and 2.34 (95% CI 0.41-13.6; p = 0.34) in those considered severely frail. CONCLUSIONS: This study found an association between the level of frailty and the head impact location in older patients who sustained a ground-level fall. Our results suggest that head impact location after a fall can help physicians identify frail patients. Although not statistically significant, the prevalence of intracranial hemorrhage seems to increase with the level of frailty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".