Associação entre preocupação com quedas e sintomas depressivos em idosos com comprometimento cognitivo: um estudo transversal: 10.15343/0104-7809.202145436443
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns about falling and depressive symptomatology are well-known fall-risk factors in older people. However, whether both factors are inter-related it is not fully elucidated among individuals with cognitive issues. To shed light in this field, we analyzed the association between the concerns about falling and depressive symptoms in older adults with cognitive impairments. This cross-sectional study was composed of 67 community-dwelling cognitively impaired older adults(age: 71±5 years; sex: 78% female). We assessed their concerns about falling (independent) and depression symptoms (outcome) using the Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FESI) and the short-version of Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), respectively. Covariates included age, sex, education, fall history, physical (Short-Physical Performance Battery), and cognitive function (Brazilian version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment). Linear regression models were performed in order to examine the independent relationship between FESI and GDS scores. All analyses were computed using STATA and significance was set at P<0.05. Participants with higher depressive symptoms (GDS ≥ 5 points) showed a significantly poor score on FESI (Mean difference: -5.3 points; 95%CI = -9.9 to -0.7; p=0.02). The regression model showed an association between the FESI and GDS-15 after adjustment for confounders (β=0.08; 95% CI= 0.02; 0.14), suggesting that higher concerns about falling are associated with higher depressive symptoms. Concerns about falling are associated with depressive symptoms among cognitively impaired older adults independently of overall physical function, global cognition, and fall history.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".