Prevalence of Falls, Physical Performance, and Dual-Task Cost While Walking in Older Adults at High Risk of Falling with and Without Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzhong Li,1 Peter Harmer2 1Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR 97403, USA; 2Department of Exercise and Health Science, Willamette University, Salem, OR, 97301, USACorrespondence: Fuzhong LiOregon Research Institute, 1776 Millrace Dr., Eugene, OR 97403, USAEmail fuzhongl@ori.orgPurpose: To compare the prevalence of falls, physical performance, and dual-task cost during walking between cognitively healthy and impaired older adults at high risk of falling.Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of 670 community-dwelling older adults who were considered at high risk of falling, operationalized as 1) having fallen at least once in the preceding 12 months and having a health-care practitioner’s referral indicating that the participant was at risk of falls or 2) having impaired mobility as evidenced by a Timed Up and Go (TUG) result ≥ 13.5 s. Participants (mean age = 77.7 years, SD = 5.6) were divided into cognitively healthy (n = 461) or cognitively impaired (n = 209) groups using a cutoff score of < 23 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. Assessment included self-reported number of falls over the previous 12 months, functional reach, TUG, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and single- and dual-task walk performance. Data were analyzed using Poisson regression to estimate the prevalence ratios of falls and analysis of variance to examine between-group differences on physical performance and dual-task cost during walking performance.Results: In the analysis, 82.3% of older adults with cognitive impairment and 69.4% of unimpaired older adults reported 1 or more falls in the previous 12 months. Compared with cognitively healthy participants, those with cognitive impairment were 2.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17 to 3.05) times more likely to have any fall and 2.33 (95% CI = 1.95 to 2.78) times more likely to have multiple falls. Older adults with cognitive impairment performed worse on functional reach (mean difference [MD] = − 2.33 cm, 95% CI = − 3.21 to − 1.46), TUG (MD = 3.05 s, 95% CI = 2.22 to 3.88), and SPPB (MD = − 1.24 points, 95% CI = − 1.55 to − 0.92) and showed increase in dual-task costs (MD = 6.59%, 95% CI = 4.19 to 9.03) compared to those without cognitive impairment.Conclusion: Older adults at high risk for falls and who have cognitive impairment are associated with a greater risk for falls and decrements in physical and dual-task performance.Keywords: cognitive impairment, dual-task, falls, elderly, physical performance
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".