Effects of time since the fall on strength, functional performance, and postural control in physically independent older adults: a cross-sectional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The growth of the older adult population requires special attention to their health, as chronic diseases can affect their functional capacity and quality of life. Falls are frequent in this group, but it is unclear whether the time elapsed since the fall influences muscle strength, agility, and postural control. Objective: To investigate differences in strength, functional performance, and postural control in physically independent older adults, divided into three groups based on the time since the fall: less than 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and more than 12 months. Method: A total of 137 participants were evaluated, analyzing fall characteristics, fear of falling, and medication use. Muscle strength was measured using the handgrip test, while agility was assessed with the AGILEQ test. Postural control was examined using a force platform, analyzing unipedal balance. Results: The results showed that the participants' average strength was 25 kgf, below the cutoff for men (27 kgf) and above for women (16 kgf), but with no clear association with the time since the fall. Tripping was the most common cause. Regarding agility, no significant differences were found between the groups, suggesting that independent older adults maintain strength and confidence in mobility. In postural control, previous studies indicate worse performance in older adults who have fallen, but our analysis found no variations between groups according to the time since the fall. Conclusion: In conclusion, no significant differences in functional performance were observed among the groups analyzed. Longitudinal studies are needed to better understand recovery and adaptation after falls, including factors such as physical activity levels. This may contribute to the development of more effective strategies for rehabilitation and fall prevention 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".