Association between perceived occupational performance and satisfaction and balance, gait, and fear of falling in older adults with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Mild cognitive impairment impairs activities of daily living, independence and social participation in older adults. This study investigated the association between perceived occupational performance and balance, gait and fear of falling in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Method: The study included 36 older adults over the age of 65 with mild cognitive impairment . Balance and gait of the older adults were assessed with the Tinetti balance and gait test, fear of falling with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and occupational performance with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The relationship between Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and other parameters was analysed by Spearmen’s test. Results: The mean age of the participants was 75.13 ± 6.92 years. There was a moderate positive correlation between the satisfaction parameter of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Tinetti gait test ( r = 0.54, p < 0.01) and the Tinetti total score ( r = 0.41, p < 0.05). There was no relationship between the other parameters. Conclusion: Current findings suggest that older adults with mild cognitive impairment have different perceptions of activities of daily living and that gait problems of individuals with mild cognitive impairment affect perceived occupational satisfaction more than balance and fear of falling. Clinical Trial Number : NCT06513325
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".