Balance measures for fall risk screening in community-dwelling older adults with COPD: A longitudinal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) increases fall risk, but consensus is lacking on suitable balance measures for fall risk screening in this group. We aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of balance measures for fall risk screening in community-dwelling older adults with COPD. Methods In a secondary analysis of two studies, participants, aged ≥60 with COPD and 12-month fall history or balance issues were tracked for 12-month prospective falls. Baseline balance measures – Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief BESTest), single leg stance (SLS), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and TUG Dual-Task (TUG-DT) test – were assessed using intra-class correlation (ICC 2,1 ) for reliability, Pearson/Spearman correlation with balance-related factors for convergent validity, t-tests/Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with fall-related and disease-related factors for known-groups validity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) for predictive validity. Results Among 174 participants (73±8 years; 86 females) with COPD, all balance measures showed excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability (ICC 2,1 =0.88-0.97) and moderate convergent validity (r=0.34-0.77) with related measures. Brief BESTest and SLS test had acceptable known-groups validity (p<0.05) for 12-month fall history, self-reported balance problems, and gait aid use. TUG test and TUG-DT test discriminated between groups based on COPD severity, supplemental oxygen use, and gait aid use. All measures displayed insufficient predictive validity (AUC<0.70) for 12-month prospective falls. Conclusion Though all four balance measures demonstrated excellent reliability, they lack accuracy in prospectively predicting falls in community-dwelling older adults with COPD. These measures are best utilized within multi-factorial fall risk assessments for this population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".