Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the fear of falling in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and clinical factors, the amount of physical activity, the risk of a complicated fall, and the quality of life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 39 female patients with Hoehn and Yahr stage 2-3 PD (66.64±6.79 years) and 27 females without PD (67.76±6.48 years). PD patients were assessed for disease duration, motor function (MDS UPDRS-Part III), and quality of life (PDQ-39). All study participants were assessed for fear of falling according to the ABC (confidence level) and the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), the severity of depression (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)), cognitive status (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), the performance of the necessary physical activity for endurance, strength, and balance; in addition, hand strength was measured, and the probability of fractures (using FRAX tool) was calculated. RESULTS: The sum of FES-I points was greater in patients with PD and was correlated with age, duration of PD, and the points for MDS UPDRS-Part III, BDI, PDQ-39, and EQ-5D-3L. The sum of points for the ABC scale in PD patients did not differ from those in subjects without PD and was correlated with age and the points for MDS UPDRS-Part III, BDI, PDQ-39, EQ-5D-3L, proximal hip fracture risk, and right and left hand strength. Fourteen (38%) PD patients performed the required amount of power load and had a sum of ABC points more than patients who failed this test. CONCLUSION: Among the elderly, the fear of falling is more pronounced in the presence of PD and is associated with age, duration of PD, motor disorders, and depression. Increased confidence reduces the risk of falls complicated by proximal hip fracture and improves quality of life. In PD patients, the fear of falling is reduced by regularly performing the required amount of physical activity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".