The Worse the Physical Function, the More Probable the Concerns about Falling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have explored the impact of poor physical function on concerns about falling (CaF) in older adults, often with low sensitivity due to fragmented assessments. The functional continuum (FC), which covers the full range from robust function to disability, may better capture the relationship between physical function and CaF risk. Using data from NHATS (Rounds 1-10), a proportional hazards model examined CaF risk stratification by FC categories. Among 6,547 participants, 30.1% reported CaF. CaF risk increased progressively with worsening FC, showing a significant dose-response relationship (HR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.10-1.16). While FC categories 2-3 showed no significant difference from category 1, risk increased at category 4 (HR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.11-1.65) and doubled at categories 6-8. CaF risk increases with worsening physical function. FC can complement existing risk tools to identify high-risk older populations and guide the design of targeted interventions to prevent CaF.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".