Mapping sex and gender differences in falls among older adults: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map the nature, extent, and types of literature examining sex and gender differences in falls among older adults. We will also identify gaps that exist in the current literature and opportunities for further research. Introduction: Due to the high prevalence and impact of falls on the aging population in Canada, there is a need to identify subgroups of individuals at greater risk of falls to allow for more targeted fall prevention interventions. In particular, a growing body of literature has examined differences in sex and gender among those who have fallen or those who are at risk of falling. However, there is currently a lack of literature within falls research that defines and operationalizes sex and gender terms, limiting the interpretability of health outcomes and how outcomes differ between males and females and individuals with different gender characteristics. A scoping review has been deemed appropriate due to the broad nature of this topic to focus on and inform future research. Inclusion: Studies must include individuals 60 years or older and discuss concepts related to falls and sex or gender to be eligible for inclusion. Studies will be included if the mean age of participants is 60 years or over. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Ageline, and Psychinfo databases will be searched from inception to March 2, 2022. Following the removal of duplicate studies, titles and abstracts will be screened and selected according to predefined inclusion criteria by two or more reviewers. The selected full texts will also be screened and reasons for exclusion will be reported. Data will be extracted from included studies by two or more independent reviewers according to the Participant, Concept and Context Framework. Information regarding the aims of this review will be extracted and presented in a tabular format accompanied by a narrative summary.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".