Feasibility of Measuring Physical Function by Wearable Devices During Deprescribing of Anticholinergic and Sedative Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cumulative exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications has been associated with worsening physical function in older adults. We evaluated the feasibility of measuring physical function using wearable devices and explored the impact of reducing the anticholinergic and sedative medication burden in a pilot study of community-dwelling adults aged 60 years and older. Evaluations included the 10-meter walk test (10MWT), the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and the mini-BESTest. Two participants/month were recruited in one clinic in 2022. The five participants had a median age of 67, a median DBI of 1.7, and four were female. The feasibility analysis showed that the 10MWT and SPPB tests were completed on 12/12, and the mini-BESTest on 11/12. An exploratory analysis showed clinically meaningful improvements in gait speed (mean +0.18 m/s) and SPPB (mean +2.2 points). We showed the feasibility of measuring physical function by wearable devices during deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".