ArticleGerontology2026
Sex Differences in the Development of a Multidimensional Fall Risk Index for Older Adults.
Article in Gerontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMultiple factors predict falls among older adults, yet most screening tools are unidimensional and ignore sex differences despite higher fall occurrence among females. Understanding sex differences in the risks and occurrence of falls is critical to inform clinical decision-making. Using extant data from a population-based study, we developed and validated separate, fall indexes by sex based on the relationship between multiple, intrinsic risk factors for falls.
methodsTwo thousand, eight hundred fifty-seven individuals (57% females) comprised the test set, and 1,428 individuals comprised the validation set. Cox proportional hazards regression determined the weights for each significant risk factor in predicting incident falls, which subsequently comprised each fall index.
resultsTraditional fall risk factors were largely confirmed for females and males, except that underweight BMI and use of fall-risk-inducing drugs discriminated future fallers from non-fallers among females only. The multidimensional index predicted fall risk such that for every one-point increase on the index, there was a 2.5-fold increased hazard of experiencing a future fall among females (HR = 2.47, 95% CI [2.08-2.93], p < 0.001), and a 77% increase among males (HR = 1.77, 95% CI [1.56-2.02], p < 0.001). Classification accuracy (percentage of correct predictions out of all predictions) was 69% for females at 1-year post-baseline and 67% for males, increasing to 74% at 5 years and 79% at 10 years post-baseline for both females and males.
conclusionSignificant sex differences in fall risk factors were identified. Sex-specific measures may improve clinical screenings and guide tailored interventions.
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.