Exploring the relationship between falls, fall‐related psychological concerns, and personality traits in adults: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Personality traits, such as neuroticism and extraversion, are emerging as important predictors of falls. Despite their significance, existing fall prevention programs often overlook these traits, creating a notable research gap. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to explore the existing literature on the relationships among personality traits, falls, and fall-related psychological concerns (FrPCs). Methods: This scoping review will adhere to the framework established by Arksey and O'Malley, incorporating extensions recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute and using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A thorough search strategy will be employed, aligning with the population, concept, and context (PCC) selection criteria. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus, will be searched from their inception to the present. Additionally, a manual search of the reference lists of identified and relevant full-text articles will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, perform full-text reviews, and extract data from pertinent articles. Discussion: Personality traits are increasingly recognized as influential predictors of falls and related psychological concerns. This review aims to make a substantial contribution to the existing literature by being the first to comprehensively explore and provide a descriptive synthesis of the relationship between personality traits and falls, as well as FrPCs in adults. It is hoped that the outcomes of this review will enhance our comprehension of the role of personality traits in falls, potentially informing future research and strategies for this critical area of study. Scoping Review Registration: This scoping review protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KR74X).
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 | 0.098 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.011 |
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".