MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409212319 · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2025.105580

Predictive Accuracy of the 3-m Backward Walk Test for Fall Risk in Older Adults

2025· article· en· W4409212319 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Kapan, Miloš Ristić, Richard Felsinger, Andreas Konrad, Thomas Waldhoer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicIncidence (geometry)Prospective cohort studyArea under the curvePoisson regressionRetrospective cohort studyPredictive value of testsCutoffInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Falls are a leading cause of injury in older adults, and accurate tools to predict fall risk are essential. This study evaluates the predictive accuracy of the 3-m Backward Walk Test (3 MBWT) for fall risk, comparing it with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 10-m walk test (10 MWT), and fall-related questionnaires. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in 2 nursing homes in Vienna, Austria. A total of 217 participants (65.9% female, median age, 80 years) were included. METHODS: Fall history was recorded retrospectively over 12 months and prospectively over 4 months using interviews and a Cogvis 3D sensor system. Predictive accuracy was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve (AUC) analyses, whereas Poisson regression was used to analyze fall incidence. RESULTS: Among participants, 86 (39.6%) reported a fall within the previous 12 months. For retrospective falls, the SPPB (AUC, 0.76), 3 MBWT (AUC, 0.75), and 10 MWT (AUC, 0.73) showed similar predictive accuracy. For prospective falls, the SPPB (AUC, 0.75) and 3 MBWT (AUC, 0.74) remained similarly accurate, whereas the 10 MWT had lower predictive power (AUC, 0.67). For the 3 MBWT, cutoff points were ≥9.31 seconds for retrospective falls (32% higher incidence; 95% CI, 1.05-1.95) and ≥8.15 seconds for prospective falls (27% higher incidence; 95% CI, 1.02-1.66). Each additional second in 3 MBWT performance increased fall incidence (retrospective, 7%; prospective, 5%). SPPB cutoffs of <7.02 and <8.00 were associated with 49% (95% CI, 1.06-2.21) and 30% (95% CI, 1.02-1.74) higher fall incidence, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The 3 MBWT shows comparable accuracy with the SPPB and moderately better performance than the 10 MWT for prospective falls. Its efficiency, predictive value, and time savings make it a practical and viable tool for clinical fall risk assessment in older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Directors AssociationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207