The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review of fall risk assessment in geriatric populations using inertial sensors
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Falls are a prevalent issue in the geriatric population and can result in damaging physical and psychological consequences. Fall risk assessment can provide information to enable appropriate interventions for those at risk of falling. Wearable inertial-sensor-based systems can provide quantitative measures indicative of fall risk in the geriatric population. METHODS: Forty studies that used inertial sensors to evaluate geriatric fall risk were reviewed and pertinent methodological features were extracted; including, sensor placement, derived parameters used to assess fall risk, fall risk classification method, and fall risk classification model outcomes. RESULTS: Inertial sensors were placed only on the lower back in the majority of papers (65%). One hundred and thirty distinct variables were assessed, which were categorized as position and angle (7.7%), angular velocity (11.5%), linear acceleration (20%), spatial (3.8%), temporal (23.1%), energy (3.8%), frequency (15.4%), and other (14.6%). Fallers were classified using retrospective fall history (30%), prospective fall occurrence (15%), and clinical assessment (32.5%), with 22.5% using a combination of retrospective fall occurrence and clinical assessments. Half of the studies derived models for fall risk prediction, which reached high levels of accuracy (62-100%), specificity (35-100%), and sensitivity (55-99%). CONCLUSIONS: Inertial sensors are promising sensors for fall risk assessment. Future studies should identify fallers using prospective techniques and focus on determining the most promising sensor sites, in conjunction with determination of optimally predictive variables. Further research should also attempt to link predictive variables to specific fall risk factors and investigate disease populations that are at high risk of falls.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Frailty in Older Adults: Evidence for a Phenotype
Fried, L. P., Tangen, C. M., Walston, J., Newman, A. B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., Seeman, T., Tracy, R., Kop, W. J., Burke, G., et al. (2001) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · doi:10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146 · Cited by 24,907
The Timed “Up & Go”: A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly Persons
Podsiadlo, D., & Richardson, S. (1991) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x · Cited by 14,418 · cited 1×
“The literature recommends a threshold of 14 s for studies focused on community dwelling elderly without neurological disorders [37] and 30 s for community dwelling elderly with neurological disorders [82].”
BackgroundGuralnik, J. M., Simonsick, E. M., Ferrucci, L., Glynn, R. J., Berkman, L. F., Blazer, D. G., Scherr, P. A., & Wallace, R. B. (1994) · Journal of Gerontology · doi:10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85 · Cited by 9,792
A Review of Accelerometry-Based Wearable Motion Detectors for Physical Activity Monitoring
Yang, C.-C., & Hsu, Y.-L. (2010) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s100807772 · Cited by 1,058
Cited by
Increasing fall risk awareness using wearables: a fall risk awareness protocol
Danielsen, A., Olofsen, H., & Bremdal, B. A. (2016) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2016.08.016 · Cited by 66
Wearable Inertial Sensors and Their Applications
Tamura, T. (2014) · Wearable Sensors · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-418662-0.00024-6 · Cited by 19
Hsu, Y.-C., Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Chen, F., & Tsui, K.-L. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/30135 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Howcroft, J., Kofman, J., & Lemaire, E. D.
- Venue
- Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91
- ISSN
- 1743-0003 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110320181
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 68.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.