The INITIATE (Initial Test for Fall Risk Assessment in the Elderly) prospective cohort study: baseline results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fall prevention recommendations include mobility or balance testing to identify older adults with high fall risk who require further intervention. However, there is no consensus on the best tests or optimal cut-off values. The Initial Test for Fall RIsk Assessment in The Elderly (INITIATE) study was designed to determine the optimal screening test(s) for predicting falls among community-dwelling older adults. Here we describe the study protocol, sample characteristics, and baseline differences between participants with and without a history of falling. METHODS: We undertook a 1-year prospective cohort study of community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) able to walk 10 m without assistance at baseline and living in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a 2-hour baseline visit where 7 validated balance and mobility tests (Timed up and go (TUG) usual pace, TUG fast pace, TUG with a cognitive dual task, Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), 5 times sit-to-stand (5TSTS), single leg stance, gait speed) were administered. Falls were tracked for 12 months using monthly diaries and follow-up calls for context. Participants received quarterly calls to monitor general wellbeing, healthcare utilization, and changes to mobility. Descriptive statistics were calculated and differences by 12-month fall history were tested using t-tests, chi square tests, and Wilcox Rank Sum tests as appropriate. RESULTS: From 3211 contacted older adults, 514 (19%) consented. The mean age was 76.4 years (SD 6.7), 64% were female, 68% had a postsecondary degree/diploma, and 231(45%) reported a fall in the last 12 months. Means(SD) for the performance-based tests were as follows: TUG = 11.8s(4.0), TUG fast pace = 9.2s(3.4), TUG cog = 14.2s(5.9), Brief BESTest = 15.9 score(5.3), 5TSTS = 12.5s(4.3), single leg stance = 14.1s(16.3), gait speed = 1.14 m/s(0.28). Comparisons between baseline fallers and non-fallers showed no differences in age, sex, income, or education(p > 0.05) but did show differences in all 7 tests(p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Participants are representative of community-dwelling older adults with fall risk. Balance and mobility test differences between fallers and non-fallers support the need for prospective comparisons of their predictive validity. Follow-up results, expected in late 2025, will help inform future updates to fall risk assessment and prevention guidelines.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".