Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Executive Function and Falls in Older Adults: New Findings from a Five-Year Prospective Study Link Fall Risk to Cognition

Open access
Mirelman, Anat, Herman, Talia, Brozgol, Marina, Dorfman, Moran, Sprecher, Elliot, Schweiger, Avraham, Giladi, Nir, Hausdorff, Jeffrey M.·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent findings suggest that executive function (EF) plays a critical role in the regulation of gait in older adults, especially under complex and challenging conditions, and that EF deficits may, therefore, contribute to fall risk. The objective of this study was to evaluate if reduced EF is a risk factor for future falls over the course of 5 years of follow-up. Secondary objectives were to assess whether single and dual task walking abilities, an alternative window into EF, were associated with fall risk. METHODOLOGY/MAIN RESULTS: We longitudinally followed 256 community-living older adults (age: 76.4±4.5 yrs; 61% women) who were dementia free and had good mobility upon entrance into the study. At baseline, a computerized cognitive battery generated an index of EF, attention, a closely related construct, and other cognitive domains. Gait was assessed during single and dual task conditions. Falls data were collected prospectively using monthly calendars. Negative binomial regression quantified risk ratios (RR). After adjusting for age, gender and the number of falls in the year prior to the study, only the EF index (RR: .85; CI: .74-.98, p = .021), the attention index (RR: .84; CI: .75-.94, p = .002) and dual tasking gait variability (RR: 1.11; CI: 1.01-1.23; p = .027) were associated with future fall risk. Other cognitive function measures were not related to falls. Survival analyses indicated that subjects with the lowest EF scores were more likely to fall sooner and more likely to experience multiple falls during the 66 months of follow-up (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These findings demonstrate that among community-living older adults, the risk of future falls was predicted by performance on EF and attention tests conducted 5 years earlier. The present results link falls among older adults to cognition, indicating that screening EF will likely enhance fall risk assessment, and that treatment of EF may reduce fall risk.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0040297

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 459

Metadata

Authors
Mirelman, A., Herman, T., Brozgol, M., Dorfman, M., Sprecher, E., Schweiger, A., Giladi, N., & Hausdorff, J. M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-06-29
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e40297
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132312934
Cited by
459
References
2
FWCI
73.15
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Executive Function and Falls in Older Adults: New Findings from a Five-Year Prospective Study Link Fall Risk to Cognition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0040297
The paper
Mirelman, A., Herman, T., Brozgol, M., Dorfman, M., Sprecher, E., Schweiger, A., Giladi, N., & Hausdorff, J. M. (2012). Executive Function and Falls in Older Adults: New Findings from a Five-Year Prospective Study Link Fall Risk to Cognition. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040297

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.