Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34697377›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Prediction of fall risk among community-dwelling older adults using a wearable system.

Thurmon E Lockhart, Rahul Soangra, Hyunsoo Yoon, Teresa Wu, Christopher W Frames, Raven Weaver, Karen A Roberto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Thurmon E Lockhart *School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA. Thurmon.Lockhart@asu.edu.
Rahul Soangra *Crean College of Health and Behavioral Sciences, Chapman University, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
Hyunsoo Yoon *Industrial Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, 03722, Korea.
Teresa WuSchool of Computing, Informatics, Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
Christopher W FramesSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA.
Raven WeaverDepartment of Human Development, College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164, USA.
Karen A RobertoCenter for Gerontology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA.
Arizona State University · USChapman University · USDecision Systems (United States) · USVirginia Tech · USWashington State University · USYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Falls are among the most common cause of decreased mobility and independence in older adults and rank as one of the most severe public health problems with frequent fatal consequences. In the present study, gait characteristics from 171 community-dwelling older adults were evaluated to determine their predictive ability for future falls using a wearable system. Participants wore a wearable sensor (inertial measurement unit, IMU) affixed to the sternum and performed a 10-m walking test. Measures of gait variability, complexity, and smoothness were extracted from each participant, and prospective fall incidence was evaluated over the following 6-months. Gait parameters were refined to better represent features for a random forest classifier for the fall-risk classification utilizing three experiments. The results show that the best-trained model for faller classification used both linear and nonlinear gait parameters and achieved an overall 81.6 ± 0.7% accuracy, 86.7 ± 0.5% sensitivity, 80.3 ± 0.2% specificity in the blind test. These findings augment the wearable sensor's potential as an ambulatory fall risk identification tool in community-dwelling settings. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of gait features that rely less on event detection methods, and more on time series analysis techniques. Fall prevention is a critical component in older individuals' healthcare, and simple models based on gait-related tasks and a wearable IMU sensor can determine the risk of future falls.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overGaitGait AnalysisHumansIncidenceIndependent LivingMachine LearningProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityWearable Electronic Devices

Identifiers

PMID34697377
PMCPMC8545936
OpenAlexW3208949470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.