Optimising fall risk classification models in Parkinson's disease using clinical and mobility outcomes.
Optimising fall risk classification models in Parkinson's disease using clinical and mobility outcomes.
Where did the research take place?
The study site has not been established. Author addresses may differ from where the research occurred.
Newcastle upon Tyne, GB · Author affiliation
Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; Newcastle NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.Location evidence
Pavia, IT · Author affiliation
Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; Newcastle NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.Location evidence
High Wycombe, GB · Author affiliation
Janssen Research & Development, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, UK.Location evidence
Centro, IT · Author affiliation
Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Centro Studi Attività Motorie (CSAM) and Neurorehabilitation and Spinal Units of Pavia Institute, Pavia, 27100, Italy.Location evidence
A plain-language reading has not been prepared for this paper yet.
Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls are a serious concern in Parkinson's disease (PD), often leading to hospitalisation, dependence and reduced quality of life. Effective fall management requires identification of those at risk. This cross-sectional, discriminative study aimed to evaluate which selection of outcomes best discriminate retrospective fallers from non-fallers, to inform a future prospective clinical prediction tool. METHODS: People with PD were recruited (ICICLE-GAIT; 54- and 72-month follow up assessments). Fallers and non-fallers were stratified based on prospective fall reports. A total of 299 outcomes across 4 domains were collected: clinical (n = 9), lab-based mobility (gait n = 60, turning n = 99), real-world mobility (n = 131). Receiver operating characteristic analysis evaluated classification models distinguishing fallers from non-fallers. Area under the curve (AUC) determined which models were optimal. Models were re-applied at 72-months. RESULTS: Of the 48 participants, 32 (67%) were classified as fallers and 16 (33%) as non-fallers. Significant group differences (faller vs. non-faller) were found in all domains at 54-months; clinical (n = 2/9), lab-based gait (n = 8/60), lab-based turning (n = 19/99) and real-world mobility (n = 5/131). At 54-months, turning was the strongest single-domain model (apparent AUC = 0.86, sensitivity = 0.74, specificity = 0.93; optimism-corrected AUC = 0.61), followed by real-world mobility (AUC = 0.82, sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 1.00; optimism-corrected AUC = 0.72). All multi-domain combinations including turning showed acceptable discrimination, with AUC values > 0.70. At 72-months, turning alone retained apparent perfect discrimination (AUC = 1.00), whereas clinical (AUC = 0.52), gait (AUC = 0.51) and real-world (AUC = 0.69) models declined substantially. CONCLUSION: Turning showed strong discriminative power in classifying PD fallers remaining robust over time and outperforming other assessments. Real-world mobility also had strong discriminative value, highlighting the importance of ecologically valid continuous monitoring. As this study was discriminative and exploratory in nature, these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating pending external validation. Future models should explore whether real-world turning provides superior discriminative value to lab-based turning.