MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6959209240 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7434231

Interactions during falls with environmental objects: evidence from real-life falls in long-term care captured on video

2024· other· en· W6959209240 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsoPoison controlObject (grammar)Balance (ability)Falling (accident)Injury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Falls are the leading cause of injuries in older adults. Environmental objects (such as furniture, walls, and handrails) may act as hazards or facilitators to balance maintenance and safe landing. There is lack of objective evidence on how older adults interact with objects during falls. We addressed this gap by characterizing body part contacts with objects other than the floor during real-life falls in long-term care. Methods We analyzed videos of 1759 falls experienced by 584 residents to characterize the prevalence of contacts with objects before, during, and after fall initiation. Using generalized estimating equations, we compared the prevalence of falls with versus without contact to objects after fall initiation. Using linear mixed models, we tested for differences across body parts in the probability of contacting objects after fall initiation. Results In nearly one-third of falls, interactions with objects (e.g., trips over objects, loss of support with objects) or with other people (e.g., being pushed by another person) had a primary role in causing imbalance and initiating the fall. After fall initiation, participants contacted objects in 60% of falls, with intentional hand contacts to objects via reach-to-grasp or bracing being the most common type of interaction (Probability ± SE = 0.32 ± 0.01), followed by unintentional impacts to the torso (0.21 ± 0.01) and head (0.16 ± 0.01). Intentional hand contact to an object was more common during forward than backward falls (p < 0.001), while head and torso contacts to objects were more common during backward and sideways falls than forward falls (multiple p values ≤ 0.003). The hand most often contacted chairs, wheelchairs or couches, followed by tables or counters, walls, other people, walkers, and handrails. The head, torso, and shoulder most often contacted a wall. Conclusions Most falls in long-term care involved contacts with objects other than the ground, indicating that complex environments often accompany falls in long-term care. Higher probabilities of intentional hand contacts in forward falls, versus unintentional head and torso impacts in backward and sideways falls may reflect the influence of being able to visualize and adjust one’s falling patterns to nearby objects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology→French-language works237,207→