ArticlePloS one2023
A machine learning approach to identify important variables for distinguishing between fallers and non-fallers in older women.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between statins and gait speed reserve in older adults: effects of concomitant medication.GeroScience · 2026Observational
- Dynamic fall risk prediction in hospitalized cancer patients: development and validation of a machine learning model using multidimensional clinical data to overcome over-sensitivity in traditional scales.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Predicting fall risk in older adults: A machine learning comparison of accelerometric and non-accelerometric factors.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Falls are a significant ongoing public health concern for older adults. At present, few studies have concurrently explored the influence of multiple measures when seeking to determine which variables are most predictive of fall risks. As such, this cross-sectional study aimed to identify those functional variables (i.e. balance, gait and clinical measures) and physical characteristics (i.e. strength and body composition) that could best distinguish between older female fallers and non-fallers, using a machine learning approach. Overall, 60 community-dwelling older women (≥65 years), retrospectively classified as fallers (n = 21) or non-fallers (n = 39), attended three data collection sessions. Data (281 variables) collected from tests in five separate domains (balance, gait, clinical measures, strength and body composition) were analysed using random forest (RF) and leave-one-variable-out partial least squares correlation analysis (LOVO PLSCA) to assess variable importance. The strongest discriminators from each domain were then aggregated into a multi-domain dataset, and RF, LOVO PLSCA, and logistic regression models were constructed to identify the important variables in distinguishing between fallers and non-fallers. These models were used to classify participants as either fallers or non-fallers, with their performance evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The study found that it is possible to classify fallers and non-fallers with a high degree of accuracy (e.g. logistic regression: sensitivity = 90%; specificity = 87%; AUC = 0.92; leave-one-out cross-validation accuracy = 63%) using a combination of 18 variables from four domains, with the gait and strength domains being particularly informative for screening programmes aimed at assessing falls risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.