The Relationship of Cognitive Functions with Physical Fitness Parameters, Balance, and Fall Risk in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study examines the effects of cognitive parameters on physical fitness, balance, and fall risk. Materials and Methods: The study included 79 older adults. Cognitive functions of older adults were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) was used to assess balance and fall risk, and the Senior Fitness Test (SFT) was used to assess physical fitness parameters (PFP). According to MoCA, individuals were included in the Mild Cognitive Impairment (n=38) and Normal Cognitive Level (n=41) groups. Results: The mean age of individuals in the Mild Cognitive Impairment group was 71.50 ± 4.41, while the mean age of individuals in the Normal Cognitive Level group was 70.48 ± 4.57. In our study, individuals with mild cognitive impairment were found to have worse balance scores and physical fitness parameter scores, except for lower and upper extremity flexibility and aerobic endurance. While a significant relationship was noted between MoCA and balance as well as fall risk, no relationship was found between CDT and the balance score. Furthermore, no association between the CDT and any physical fitness parameter was found, despite a good correlation between the MoCA and several physical fitness parameters. Conclusion: In conclusion, it was shown that global cognition in geriatric individuals is related to balance and PFP, such as agility, upper and lower extremity strength.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".