MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047322073

Fall Risk Classification in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Using a Smart Wrist-Worn Device and the Resident Assessment System-Home Care (RAI-HC)

2017· dissertation· en· W7047322073 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Ontario
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsWearable computerFalls in older adultsPoison controlOrdered logitLogistic regressionGeriatricsRisk assessmentFall preventionObservational studyOdds
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Falls are a serious problem especially in the aging population. To accurately identify individuals at risk for falls and mitigate the devastating effects caused by falls has become prominent to geriatrics and public health agencies. Leveraging wearable technologies and clinical assessment information may improve fall risk classification. \nObjectives: The overall objectives of this thesis project are to: (1) investigate the similarities and differences in physical activity (PA), heart rate (HR) and night sleep (SP) in a sample of community-dwelling older adults with varying fall histories, using a smart wrist-worn device; and (2) examine the risk factors for falls in the target population, create fall risk classification models and evaluate classification performances based on: i) wearable data, ii) the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC), and iii) the combination of wearable data and the RAI-HC system. \nMethods: Two parallel studies were conducted in this project. Study I was a community-based cross-sectional study, utilizing the RAI-HC system to examine the risk factors for falls in older people. In the primary analysis, the ordinal attribute of previous falls (0, 1, and ≥ 2) was used as the outcome variable to build the proportional odds models (POM) for ordinal logistic regression. In the secondary analysis, the binary attribute of falls (yes/no) was used to distinguish fallers and non-fallers. Study II, a prospective, observational study was conducted to investigate the similarities and differences among three independent faller groups (non-fallers, single fallers, and recurrent fallers) based on the number of previous falls in a sample of older adults living in community, with continuous measurements of PA, HR and SP using a smart wearable device. Descriptive statistics and simple statistical analyses were conducted to test the differences between groups. The wearable and RAI-HC assessment data were further analyzed and utilized to create fall risk classification models, with two supervised machine learning algorithms: logistic regression (LR) and decision tree (DT). The calculation of a set of performance metrics was performed to evaluate the classification performance of each final model. \nResults: Study I: Of 167,077 individuals aged ≥ 65 in the RAI-HC data set, 113,529 (68.0%) had no history of falls, 27,320 (16.4%) had one fall, and 26,226 (15.7%) experienced multiple (≥ 2) falls. Unsteady gait, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) decline, ADL self-performance on transfer dependency, short-term memory problem, primary modes of locomotion (indoors), stair climbing, bladder continence, and limit going outdoors due to fear of falling were significant predictors of fall risk in both human and computer feature selection models derived from the Minimum Data Set-Home Care (MDS-HC). The Method of Assigning Priority Levels (MAPLe) (1 vs. 5: odds ratio (OR) = 0.20; 95% confidence internal (CI), 0.18-0.22), Changes in Health, End-Stage Disease, Signs, and Symptoms (CHESS) (0 vs. 5: OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.21-0.36), ADL Clinical Assessment Protocol (CAP) (0 vs. 2: OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.20-0.22), Cognitive CAP (0 vs. 2: OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.31-0.35), and Urinary Incontinence CAP (3 vs. 0: OR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.62-1.94) were strong predictors in classifying older people with past fall histories based on the CAPs and a variety of summary scales and algorithms available within the RAI-HC assessment. The POM built on all available items on the RAI-HC data set achieved the best performance in classifying the three faller groups, with overall classification accuracy of 71.5%, and accuracies of 93.3%, 5.5% and 46.0% in classifying the non-faller, single faller and recurrent faller group, respectively. Likewise, the logistic regression model built on all available RAI-HC items achieved the best performance in distinguishing fallers and non-fallers, with the highest overall classification accuracy of 75.1%, the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.769, and the lowest Brier score of 0.171. Study II: Of 40 participants aged 65-93, 16 (40%) had no previous falls, while 8 (20%) and 16 (40%) had experienced one and multiple (≥ 2) falls, respectively. The wearable components of PA measurements extracted from the smart wrist-worn device were significantly different among three faller groups. Daily walking HR and daily activity time were identified as the best subset of predictors of fall risk with wearable data. Classification models derived from the RAI-HC data set containing 40 participants’ latest assessments outperformed those based on wearable data only. The best classification model was a decision tree based on the combination of both data sets with 80.0% of overall classification accuracy, and accuracies of 87.5%, 50.0% and 87.5% in classifying the non-faller, single faller and recurrent faller group, respectively. \nConclusions: Continuous measurements of PA, HR and SP appear to supplement the RAI-HC system in facilitating fall risk stratification. Future fall risk assessment studies should consider leveraging wearable technologies to supplement resident assessment instruments.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicSuperconducting and THz Device TechnologyFrench-language works237,207