Abstract

Current clinical methods of screening older adults for fall risk have difficulties. We analyzed data on 67 women (mean age = 77.5 years) who participated in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study within the Women’s Health Initiative and in an accelerometer calibration substudy. Participants completed the short physical performance battery (SPPB), questions about falls in the past year, and a timed 400-m walk while wearing a hip triaxial accelerometer (30 Hz). Women with SPPB ≤ 9 and 1+reported falls (n = 19) were grouped as high fall risk; women with SPPB = 10–12 and 0 reported falls (n = 48) were grouped as low fall risk. Random Forests were trained to classify women into these groups, based upon traditional measures of gait and/or signal-based features extracted from accelerometer data. Eleven models investigated combined feature effects on classification accuracy, using 10-fold cross-validation. The models had an average 73.7% accuracy, 81.1% precision, and 0.706 AUC. The best performing model including triaxial data, cross-correlations, and traditional measures of gait had 78.9% accuracy, 84.4% precision, and 0.846 AUC. Mediolateral signal-based measures—coefficient of variance, cross-correlation with anteroposterior accelerations, and mean acceleration—ranked as the top 3 features. The classification accuracy is promising, given research on probabilistic models of falls indicates accuracies ≥80% are challenging to achieve. The results suggest accelerometer-based measures captured during walking are potentially useful in screening older women for fall risk. We are applying algorithms developed in this paper on an OPACH dataset of 5000 women with a 1-year prospective falls log and week-long, free-living accelerometer data.

Highlights

  • Falls are the most common cause of serious injuries in older adults

  • Full list of features included in each feature group can be found in supplementary data MAG vector magnitude, Signal magnitude area (SMA) signal magnitude area, Coefficient of variance (COV) coefficient of variance, CORR correlation coefficient between two axes, Peak frequency (PFREQ) peak frequency, Mean amplitude deviation (MAD) mean amplitude deviation, Mean crossing rate (MCR) mean crossing rate, Standard deviation (STD) standard deviation, P2P peak-to-peak amplitude, Root mean squared (RMS) root mean squared

  • The models performed with an average accuracy of 73.7%, precision of 81.1%, sensitivity of 84.2%, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.706 and could discriminate between high and low fall risk classes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Falls are the most common cause of serious injuries in older adults. During 2014, approximately 2.8 million adults were treated for fall-related injuries in emergency departments, and about 27,000 older adults died because of falls or fall-related injuries.[1]the U.S Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening older adults for fall risk and implementing prevention strategies in high-risk adults, such as exercise programs.[2]There are several methods of screening for fall risk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed the STEADI toolkit, which includes a screening approach that combines questions about falls and functional limitations with simple physical performance tests such as the Timed Up & Go (TUG).[3] The short physical performance battery (SPPB) assesses fall risk by measuring balance, gait, and muscular strength.[4,5] Overall, the sensitivity and specificity of existing screening methods is modest. In one review of 38 different screening tools, there were only four methods with high specificity (over 90%) but all of them had mediocre sensitivity (50–60%).[6] While more comprehensive assessments of fall risk have been developed, their feasibility for mass screenings is questionable. Lord et al.[7] have developed a comprehensive fall risk assessment tool which measures physiologic capacity in each organ system related to falls, but the short version of this tool requires equipment that is not readily available, 10–15 min for administration, and a trained assessor

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call