MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7014758300

Predicting 12-Month Future Falls in People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2024· dissertation· en· W7014758300 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesReseau canadien de recherche respiratoireNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Sanitarium Association
KeywordsBalance (ability)COPDReliability (semiconductor)Balance testClinical prediction rulePulmonary diseaseFalls in older adultsPsychological interventionFalling (accident)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) has been previously linked to falls. However, there are no established tools to accurately predict falls in this population. Predicting whether an individual with COPD is at an increased likelihood of falling can help clinicians initiate early fall prevention interventions and mitigate the risk of falling. The main objective of this dissertation was to identify predictors of 12-month future falls in people with COPD that are potentially feasible for use in clinical settings. The first manuscript was a prospective cohort study among community-dwelling older adults with COPD, evaluating the reliability and validity of four balance measures: the Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Single Leg Stance (SLS) test, Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and TUG Dual-Task (TUG-DT) test. The results demonstrated that the four balance measures had excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability but did not have evidence for predictive validity for predicting 12-month future falls in this population. Although these balance measures could not predict falls with sufficient accuracy, they may have a role in multifactorial fall risk assessment. The Brief BESTest and the SLS test may be better suited for identifying balance impairment, while the TUG and TUG-DT tests may be used to screen for mobility limitations. Overall, the results suggested that additional factors beyond balance should be considered to predict future falls in COPD. The second manuscript was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data among individuals with COPD to develop and internally validate a clinical prediction model for 12-month future falls. A clinical prediction model with acceptable discrimination and calibration was identified. The model demonstrated that a higher likelihood of future falls can be predicted by a reported 12-month history of two or more falls, higher number of total chronic conditions, and worse TUG-DT test scores. The results highlight the need for external validation of the model to inform future application in different groups of people with COPD. The third manuscript was a secondary preliminary analysis of prospectively collected data among community-dwelling older adults with COPD to externally validate the clinical prediction model developed in the second manuscript. The clinical prediction model was externally validated and recalibrated, achieving acceptable calibration and discrimination. It was also demonstrated that the prediction model had superior clinical net benefit (i.e., more true positives and fewer false positives) when compared to screening for fall history alone, with decision thresholds set to 30-50% (the point at which the probability of an event is deemed actionable by a clinician). The results suggested that the clinical prediction model may be promising for detecting future falls in community-dwelling older adults and is superior to screening for fall history alone. However, the impact of the prediction model in clinical practice must be evaluated before it can be recommended outside of research settings. In conclusion, future falls in people with COPD are predicted by a 12-month history of two or more falls, a higher number of total chronic conditions, and worse mobility under cognitive demand as measured by the TUG-DT test. This work informs the future development of fall prevention guidelines for people with COPD.

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)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→