Comparison of the fall risk and balance in frail and non-frail older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To compare fall risk and balance in frail and non-frail older adults. Methods: Older people over the age of 65 who agreed to participate in the study voluntarily were included. Older people with a score of 9 and above according to the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) were classified as frail group (n=52) and older people below this score were placed into the non-frail group (n = 52). Older people’s fall risks were evaluated with the Fall Risk Questionnaire (FRQ) and their balance performance was evaluated with the Tinetti Balance and Gait Test (TBGT) and Four Square Step Test (FSST). Results: The Frail group's FRQ mean score was significantly higher than the other group (p<0.001). The frail group's TBGT balance, gait, and total scores were significantly lower than the non-frail group (p<0.001). The FSST time was significantly lower in the non-frail group (p=0.009). Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that the balance performance of the elderly during the frailty period decreases compared to the normal elderly and this increases the risk of falling. Therefore, we think that this negative aspect of frailty should be taken into account in clinical practice. .
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".