Investigation of Frailty, Dependence, Fall Risk Levels, and Influencing Factors in Elderly Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fragility, dependency and fall risk levels of the elderly are quite high. Physiological changes brought about by aging may cause recurrent falls in elderly individuals, and their quality of life may be negatively affected due to falls. This study was planned to examine fragility, dependence, fall risk, levels of protective behavior against falling, and the affecting factors in the elderly. The cross-sectional, descriptive, and correlational study was carried out with 200 elderly individuals who were admitted to the osteoporosis outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Data collection was done through Elderly Individual Information Form developed by the researchers, the Edmonton Frail Scale, the Barthel Index, the Itaki Fall Risk Scale, and the Fall Behavioral Scale for Older People. The mean age of the elderly who participated in the study was 72.07±6.76 years, 79.5% of the participants were female, 68% were primary school graduates, and 93.0% were retirement pensioners. The mean score of Edmonton Frail Scale was 6.06±2.92, Barthel Index was 94.85±12.57, Itaki Fall Risk Scale was 9.85±0.31, and Fall Behavioral Scale for Older People was 2.89±0.46. Many socio-demographic and fall-related risk factors specific to elderly individuals had an effect on the related scale scores (p < 0.05). The elderly individuals were moderately frail, slightly dependent on others in performing their life activities, had a high risk of fall, and had moderate protective behavior against falls.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".