Survival Analysis Revisited: Understanding and Unifying Poisson, Exponential, and Cox Models in Fall Risk Analysis

Tianhua Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Survival Analysis Revisited: Understanding and Unifying Poisson, Exponential, and Cox Models in Fall Risk Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Poisson regression, when applied to survival data, is a special case of the Cox proportional hazards model, with the two survival functions identical when the Cox baseline hazard is constant and normalized to one.

desk verdict Correct and clear tutorial, but the Poisson–Cox unification is standard and the abstract overstates it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03058 v1 pith:5QLA7767 submitted 2025-01-06 cs.LG cs.AI

Tianhua Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI MSC 62N0162J12

keywords survivalanalysisCoxproportionalhazardsmodelPoissonregressionexponentialfallriskpredictiongeneralizedlinearmodelstime-to-eventunification

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is an expository re-derivation of classical time-to-event models, organized around fall-risk prediction. Its central thesis is that Poisson regression applied to survival data is not a separate model but a special case of the Cox proportional hazards model: with a constant event rate $\lambda = \exp(\beta^T X)$, the Poisson survival function $S(t|X) = \exp(-t \exp(\beta^T X))$ is exactly the Cox survival function when the baseline hazard is constant and set to one. The paper builds a ladder from logistic regression through Poisson and exponential distributions to generalized linear models and Cox regression, showing what each step adds. The motivation is practical: a single survival model can simultaneously predict risk at fixed horizons, interpret covariate effects, and estimate time-to-event, which is particularly useful in healthcare settings compared with deep-learning pipelines that need separate training and post-hoc explanation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the survival-function identity $S(t|X) = \exp(-H(t|X))$ with cumulative hazard $H(t|X) = H_0(t) \exp(\beta^T X)$. It carries the unification because setting the baseline cumulative hazard to $H_0(t) = \lambda_0 t$ turns the Cox survival function into $\exp(-t \lambda_0 \exp(\beta^T X))$, which coincides with the Poisson regression survival function $\exp(-t \exp(\beta^T X))$ when $\lambda_0 = 1$. The other load-bearing pieces are the GLM link $\lambda = \exp(\beta^T X)$ for Poisson regression and Cox's partial likelihood for estimating $\beta$ without specifying the baseline hazard.

What would settle it

Take a survival dataset with a visibly time-varying baseline hazard, fit both Poisson regression and Cox regression, and compare their estimated survival curves; the unification would be contradicted if the two curves agree despite a non-constant cumulative hazard, and it would be confirmed if they diverge exactly where $H_0(t)$ departs from linearity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Poisson regression in the survival context is a specific case of the Cox model. The paper derives this by setting the event rate as $\lambda = \exp(\beta^T X)$, giving survival $S(t|X) = \exp(-t \exp(\beta^T X))$. In the Cox model, $h(t|X) = h_0(t) \exp(\beta^T X)$, and if the baseline hazard is constant, $h_0(u) = \lambda_0$, the survival function becomes $S(t|X) = \exp(-t \lambda_0 \exp(\beta^T X))$. With $\lambda_0 = 1$, the two survival functions are identical. The paper therefore frames the Cox model as the more general framework, with Poisson and exponential survival models as its constant-hazard special case, and identifies a time-varying baseline hazard as the feature that distinguishes them.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed unification holds only if the event rate is constant over time, meaning the underlying process is memoryless; if the hazard actually varies with time, the Poisson survival curve $\exp(-\lambda t)$ no longer equals the general Cox survival curve $\exp(-H_0(t) \exp(\beta^T X))$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any dataset well described by a Poisson or exponential survival model can be fit by a Cox model with a constant baseline hazard, and the coefficients retain the same hazard-ratio interpretation.
The practical choice between Poisson regression and Cox regression reduces to one assumption: whether the baseline hazard is constant, with the simpler model sufficient only when it is.
For fall-risk monitoring, a single fitted survival model can output 3-, 6-, and 12-month risk probabilities, covariate hazard ratios, and median time-to-fall without separate training runs.
The paper's equivalence between $P(N_t \ge 1)$ and $P(T \le t)$ means that event-count questions and time-to-first-event questions are answered by the same exponential survival formula only under the memoryless, constant-rate assumption.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the same nesting argument suggests a specification test: fit a Cox model, plot the estimated baseline cumulative hazard $H_0(t)$ against $t$, and check for linearity through the origin; curvature indicates the Poisson simplification is not appropriate for that dataset.
Beyond the paper, the identity extends naturally to piecewise-constant hazards, where a Poisson regression on time-stratified data would correspond to a stratified Cox model, making the paper's result the limiting case of a more general nesting.
Beyond the paper, nothing in the derivation restricts the outcome to falls, so the constant-hazard nesting should transfer to other time-to-event settings such as disease progression, hospital readmission, or equipment failure.
Beyond the paper, the paper leaves censoring unmodeled; incorporating independent censoring is the natural next step, and the counting-process formulation of the Cox partial likelihood is the standard bridge for checking whether the identity survives in that setting.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read this as a tutorial-style preprint, not a research contribution. The algebra is correct and the exposition is mostly clear, but the headline claim—that Poisson regression is a special case of the Cox model—is standard survival analysis, and it is conditional on a constant baseline hazard. The paper itself says this in Section 6, but the abstract drops the qualifier, which overstates the point.

What the paper does well: the step-by-step derivations from the Poisson/exponential survival function to GLM-based Poisson regression and then to Cox are transparent and would be useful in a classroom. The comparison of survival functions in Section 6 is honest: it sets h0(u)=λ0, absorbs λ0 into the intercept, and shows the two forms coincide. The worked example for estimating median survival time from a baseline cumulative hazard table is a nice touch. The math checks out; I did not find a load-bearing error.

Soft spots, in order: (1) Novelty is minimal. The relationship is covered in the very references the author cites, e.g., Kalbfleisch and Schaubel's 'Fifty years of the Cox model', and in any decent survival analysis text. (2) The unification is definitional. Setting the baseline hazard constant is exactly the exponential/Poisson assumption, so the paper is showing that a special case is a special case. (3) The fall-risk framing is not backed by evidence. There is no data, no Nelson-Aalen plot, no test of the constant-hazard assumption. Real fall hazards often increase with age and time since baseline, so the claimed relevance is asserted, not shown. (4) Censoring is absent. The partial likelihood in Section 7.1 is written for uncensored data, which would mislead a newcomer. (5) Minor: the exponential CDF has a typo (T vs t); the deep-learning comparison is rhetorical rather than empirical.

Who is this for? A graduate student or practitioner who wants a gentle derivation-based review of why Poisson/exponential models sit inside Cox. For that audience, it is serviceable. As a research paper in cs.LG, it does not clear the bar: the contribution is pedagogical, not methodological, and there is no empirical component.

On peer review: if the venue has a tutorial or review track, it could go out after revision; as a regular research submission, I would desk reject rather than spend referee time. Repositioning as a teaching note would be the honest move.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is a tutorial-style manuscript that revisits logistic regression, Poisson and exponential distributions, generalized linear models, and the Cox proportional hazards model, using fall risk as a motivating application. Its central technical claim is that Poisson regression in the survival context is a specific case of the Cox model when the baseline hazard is constant. Sections 3 through 6 contain step-by-step derivations of survival functions, GLM formulations, and the Cox model, and Section 7 illustrates coefficient estimation, baseline hazard estimation, and survival prediction with a hypothetical example. No real dataset is analyzed.

Significance. As a pedagogical contribution, the paper's main strength is its careful step-by-step derivations and the explicit identification of the constant-baseline-hazard condition in Section 6. The observation that a constant-hazard Poisson/exponential survival model is nested in the Cox model is mathematically sound but is a standard textbook result rather than a new methodological finding. The paper does not present new estimation procedures, new theory, or empirical evidence. Its value would be as an accessible tutorial, provided the scope is stated precisely and the unqualified claims in the abstract and conclusion are corrected. The fall-risk framing is currently unsupported because all applications are illustrative and no real fall data are examined.

major comments (3)

[§6 and Abstract] The paper's central claim is established only under a constant baseline hazard. Section 6 explicitly sets h0(u)=λ0 and then shows that the Poisson and Cox survival functions coincide when λ0=1 (or, more generally, when the constant is absorbed into the intercept). However, the abstract and Section 8 state that 'Poisson regression in the survival context is a specific case of the Cox model' without this qualifier. Since fall hazards are generally time-dependent, the unqualified statement overstates the result. The abstract and conclusion should be revised to include 'under a constant baseline hazard,' or the paper should state at the outset that the unification is conditional.
[§7.2 and overall paper] The fall-risk application is not supported by any data. Section 7.2 uses a hypothetical table of H0(t) values for months 1 through 6 with no source, and no real fall dataset is analyzed anywhere in the paper. Consequently, the manuscript does not demonstrate that the constant-hazard assumption is reasonable for fall risk, nor does it show that the proposed framework yields useful predictions in practice. If the manuscript is intended as a tutorial, the applied claims in the abstract and introduction should be removed or explicitly labeled as illustrative; if applied relevance is claimed, an empirical section with at least a descriptive check of the hazard shape, such as a Nelson-Aalen plot, and a model fitting exercise on real data is needed.
[§7.1] The estimation section omits censoring, which is central to survival analysis. The partial likelihood L(β)=∏_{i=1}^n exp(β^T X_i)/∑_{j∈R(t_i)} exp(β^T X_j) and the Breslow-type estimator for H0(t) are written without a censoring indicator, implicitly assuming that every subject's event time is observed and that there are no tied event times. In fall-risk follow-up, right censoring is the norm rather than the exception, so the tutorial's estimation recipe is incomplete as a practical guide. The authors should either state the complete-data assumption explicitly and point to standard censored-data formulas, or include censoring indicators and a brief note on tied event times.

minor comments (4)

[§3] The exponential CDF is misprinted: F(T)=P(T≤t)=1−exp(−λT) should read 1−exp(−λt), and the notation should use t consistently as the time argument.
[§6] The sentence 'If λ0=1 in the Cox model, its formula for the survival function becomes identical to that of Poisson regression' could be misinterpreted as making the result depend on a specific numerical value. Because any constant λ0 can be absorbed into the intercept exp(β0), the substantive requirement is the constancy of h0, not λ0=1; this could be stated explicitly.
[§4] The exponential regression mean hβ(X)=1/(−β^T X) is correct, but the derivation would be clearer if the authors explicitly recalled that E[T]=1/λ for T∼Exp(λ) and that the canonical parameterization gives η=β^T X=−λ.
[§8] There is a typo in the final paragraph: 'classical statistical survivla frameworks' should be 'classical statistical survival frameworks.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Poisson–Cox unification is a conditional mathematical derivation, not a fitted or self-referential result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that Poisson regression in a survival context is a special case of the Cox model—is established by direct derivation, not by circular reasoning. Section 3 derives the survival function S(t)=exp(-lambda t) from the constant-rate Poisson/exponential assumption; Section 4 introduces lambda=exp(beta^T X) via GLMs to obtain S(t|X)=exp(-t exp(beta^T X)); Section 5 derives the Cox survival function S(t|X)=exp(-H0(t) exp(beta^T X)); Section 6 then compares the two and explicitly conditions on a constant baseline hazard h0(u)=lambda0 and on lambda0=1 to obtain identical formulas. The paper itself acknowledges the conditionality: 'Poisson regression can be seen as a special case of the Cox model under the assumption of a constant baseline hazard.' No parameter is fitted to any subset of data and then renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing premise is justified only by a self-citation, and no theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The derivation is self-contained and the equivalence is a genuine special-case relationship, even though its practical relevance to fall risk is not empirically tested. That limitation affects the strength of the contribution, not its circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on the constant hazard assumption for the Poisson process and on the Cox model's constant baseline hazard restriction to establish the equivalence. No new entities are introduced, and no data are fitted; the only hand-chosen numbers appear in a toy example.

free parameters (2)

lambda0 (Cox constant baseline hazard normalization) = set to 1 in the comparison
The paper's demonstration that Poisson regression and Cox survival functions coincide requires setting the Cox baseline hazard to the constant lambda0 and then normalizing lambda0=1; general Poisson regression would absorb lambda0 into the intercept, so this normalization is the specific bridge.
Illustrative beta'X and H0(t) table in the worked example = beta'X=2.0; H0(t)=0.10,0.25,0.40,0.60,0.85,1.10 at t=1..6
Chosen by hand for a toy demonstration of median survival time; not fitted to any dataset and not part of the central theoretical claim.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Falls follow a Poisson process with constant rate lambda
Used in Section 3 to derive the survival function S(t)=exp(-lambda t); the Poisson/exponential equivalence and the later Cox comparison depend on this constant-rate assumption.
domain assumption The Cox baseline hazard h0(t) can be restricted to a constant lambda0 for the equivalence
Section 6 sets h0(u)=lambda0 to reduce the Cox survival function to the Poisson form; this restriction is a modeling special case, not a general property of the Cox model.
domain assumption Follow-up is uncensored in the derivations
The paper's survival formulas assume complete observation of event times; real fall-risk data include censoring, and the paper does not discuss how censoring enters the Poisson/Cox likelihood.
standard math Exponential family representations and canonical links for Bernoulli, exponential, and Poisson distributions
Section 4 rewrites these distributions in the form f(y;eta)=b(y)exp(eta T(y)-a(eta)) to derive the GLM links; these are standard mathematical facts.
domain assumption Proportional hazards assumption: covariate effects on the hazard are multiplicative and constant over time
Section 5 defines h(t|X)=h0(t)exp(beta'X) and notes the hazard ratio is independent of t; this assumption underlies both the Cox model and the Poisson-as-Cox comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Survival Analysis Revisited: Understanding and Unifying Poisson, Exponential, and Cox Models in Fall Risk Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QLA7767

@misc{pith2026250103058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Survival Analysis Revisited: Understanding and Unifying Poisson, Exponential, and Cox Models in Fall Risk Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QLA7767}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03058}
}

read the original abstract

This paper explores foundational and applied aspects of survival analysis, using fall risk assessment as a case study. It revisits key time-related probability distributions and statistical methods, including logistic regression, Poisson regression, Exponential regression, and the Cox Proportional Hazards model, offering a unified perspective on their relationships within the survival analysis framework. A contribution of this work is the step-by-step derivation and clarification of the relationships among these models, particularly demonstrating that Poisson regression in the survival context is a specific case of the Cox model. These insights address gaps in understanding and reinforce the simplicity and interpretability of survival models. The paper also emphasizes the practical utility of survival analysis by connecting theoretical insights with real-world applications. In the context of fall detection, it demonstrates how these models can simultaneously predict fall risk, analyze contributing factors, and estimate time-to-event outcomes within a single streamlined framework. In contrast, advanced deep learning methods often require complex post-hoc interpretation and separate training for different tasks particularly when working with structured numerical data. This highlights the enduring relevance of classical statistical frameworks and makes survival models especially valuable in healthcare settings, where explainability and robustness are critical. By unifying foundational concepts and offering a cohesive perspective on time-to-event analysis, this work serves as an accessible resource for understanding survival models and applying them effectively to diverse analytical challenges.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Applied survival analysis: regression modeling of time-to-event data, volume 618

David W Hosmer Jr, Stanley Lemeshow, and Susanne May. Applied survival analysis: regression modeling of time-to-event data, volume 618. John Wiley & Sons, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Time-to-event analysi s

Juliana Tolles and Roger J Lewis. Time-to-event analysi s. JAMA, 315(10):1046–1047, 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Frailty in elderly people

Andrew Clegg, John Y oung, Steve Iliffe, Marcel Olde Rikkert, and Kenneth Rockwood. Frailty in elderly people. The Lancet, 381(9868):752–762, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Frailty in older adult s

Dae Hyun Kim and Kenneth Rockwood. Frailty in older adult s. New England Journal of Medicine , 391(6):538– 548, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Video capture of the circums tances of falls in elderly people residing in long- term care: an observational study

Stephen N Robinovitch, Fabio Feldman, Yijian Y ang, Rebecca Schonnop, Pet Ming Leung, Thiago Sarraf, Joanie Sims-Gould, and Marie Loughin. Video capture of the circums tances of falls in elderly people residing in long- term care: an observational study. The Lancet, 381(9860):47–54, 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Understanding modiﬁable and unmodiﬁable older adult fall risk factors to create effecti ve prevention strategies

Gwen Bergen, Mark R Stevens, Ramakrishna Kakara, and Eli zabeth R Burns. Understanding modiﬁable and unmodiﬁable older adult fall risk factors to create effecti ve prevention strategies. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 15(6):580–589, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Investigating the biomechanics of falls in older ad ults in long-term care using a video camera: a scoping review

Anastasia Traverso, A ysun Bayram, Giacomo Rossettini, Stefania Chiappinotto, Alessandro Galazzi, and Alvisa Palese. Investigating the biomechanics of falls in older ad ults in long-term care using a video camera: a scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 24(1):810, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Goodfellow, Y

I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville. Deep Learning, volume 1. MIT Press Cambridge, 2016

work page 2016

Show all 26 references

[9]

The future o f human-centric explainable artiﬁcial intelligence (xai) is not post-hoc explanations

Vinitra Swamy, Jibril Frej, and Tanja Käser. The future o f human-centric explainable artiﬁcial intelligence (xai) is not post-hoc explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00364 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[10]

Interpretable and explainable machine l earning: a methods-centric overview with concrete examples

Ri ˇcards Marcinkevi ˇcs and Julia E V ogt. Interpretable and explainable machine l earning: a methods-centric overview with concrete examples. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledg e Discovery , 13(3):e1493, 2023

2023
[11]

Interpretation of time-series deep models: A survey

Ziqi Zhao, Y ucheng Shi, Shushan Wu, Fan Y ang, Wenzhan Song, and Ninghao Liu. Interpretation of time-series deep models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14582 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

Deep neural networks and tabular data: A survey

V adim Borisov, Tobias Leemann, Kathrin Seßler, Johannes Haug, Martin Pawelczyk, and Gjergji Kasneci. Deep neural networks and tabular data: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

2022
[13]

Logistic regressio n

Todd G Nick and Kathleen M Campbell. Logistic regressio n. T opics in Biostatistics, pages 273–301, 2007

2007
[14]

S urvival analysis and regression models

Brandon George, Samantha Seals, and Inmaculada Aban. S urvival analysis and regression models. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 21(4):686–694, 2014. 12 Survival Analysis: Uniﬁed Models in Fall Risk

2014
[15]

To tune or not to tune, a case study of ridge logistic regression in small or sparse datasets

Hana Šinkovec, Georg Heinze, Rok Blagus, and Angelika G eroldinger. To tune or not to tune, a case study of ridge logistic regression in small or sparse datasets. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 21:1–15, 2021

2021
[16]

Introduction to probability models

Sheldon M Ross. Introduction to probability models. Academic Press, 2014

2014
[17]

Statistical regression and classiﬁcation: from linear mod els to machine learning

Norman Matloff. Statistical regression and classiﬁcation: from linear mod els to machine learning . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017

2017
[18]

An introduction to generalized linear models

Annette J Dobson and Adrian G Barnett. An introduction to generalized linear models . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

2018
[19]

Regression models and life-tables

David R Cox. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodo log- ical), 34(2):187–202, 1972

1972
[20]

A bayesian justiﬁcation of cox’s partial likelihood

Debajyoti Sinha, Joseph G Ibrahim, and Ming-Hui Chen. A bayesian justiﬁcation of cox’s partial likelihood. Biometrika, 90(3):629–641, 2003

2003
[21]

Survival analysis part i: basic concepts and ﬁrst analyses

Taane G Clark, Michael J Bradburn, Sharon B Love, and Dou glas G Altman. Survival analysis part i: basic concepts and ﬁrst analyses. British Journal of Cancer , 89(2):232–238, 2003

2003
[22]

Survival analysis part ii: multivariate data analysis–an introduction to concepts an d methods

Mike J Bradburn, Taane G Clark, Sharon B Love, and Dougla s Graham Altman. Survival analysis part ii: multivariate data analysis–an introduction to concepts an d methods. British Journal of Cancer , 89(3):431–436, 2003

2003
[23]

Survival analysis part iii: multivari- ate data analysis–choosing a model and assessing its adequa cy and ﬁt

Michael J Bradburn, Taane G Clark, Sharon B Love, and Dou glas G Altman. Survival analysis part iii: multivari- ate data analysis–choosing a model and assessing its adequa cy and ﬁt. British Journal of Cancer, 89(4):605–611, 2003

2003
[24]

Survival analysis part iv: further concepts and methods in survival analysis

Taane G Clark, Michael J Bradburn, Sharon B Love, and DG2 394469 Altman. Survival analysis part iv: further concepts and methods in survival analysis. British Journal of Cancer , 89(5):781–786, 2003

2003
[25]

Proportional hazar ds model: a review

Dhananjay Kumar and Bengt Klefsjö. Proportional hazar ds model: a review. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 44(2):177–188, 1994

1994
[26]

Fifty years of the cox model

John D Kalbﬂeisch and Douglas E Schaubel. Fifty years of the cox model. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 10(1):1–23, 2023. 13

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Applied survival analysis: regression modeling of time-to-event data, volume 618

David W Hosmer Jr, Stanley Lemeshow, and Susanne May. Applied survival analysis: regression modeling of time-to-event data, volume 618. John Wiley & Sons, 2008

work page 2008

[2] [2]

Time-to-event analysi s

Juliana Tolles and Roger J Lewis. Time-to-event analysi s. JAMA, 315(10):1046–1047, 2016

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Frailty in elderly people

Andrew Clegg, John Y oung, Steve Iliffe, Marcel Olde Rikkert, and Kenneth Rockwood. Frailty in elderly people. The Lancet, 381(9868):752–762, 2013

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Frailty in older adult s

Dae Hyun Kim and Kenneth Rockwood. Frailty in older adult s. New England Journal of Medicine , 391(6):538– 548, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Video capture of the circums tances of falls in elderly people residing in long- term care: an observational study

Stephen N Robinovitch, Fabio Feldman, Yijian Y ang, Rebecca Schonnop, Pet Ming Leung, Thiago Sarraf, Joanie Sims-Gould, and Marie Loughin. Video capture of the circums tances of falls in elderly people residing in long- term care: an observational study. The Lancet, 381(9860):47–54, 2013

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Understanding modiﬁable and unmodiﬁable older adult fall risk factors to create effecti ve prevention strategies

Gwen Bergen, Mark R Stevens, Ramakrishna Kakara, and Eli zabeth R Burns. Understanding modiﬁable and unmodiﬁable older adult fall risk factors to create effecti ve prevention strategies. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 15(6):580–589, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Investigating the biomechanics of falls in older ad ults in long-term care using a video camera: a scoping review

Anastasia Traverso, A ysun Bayram, Giacomo Rossettini, Stefania Chiappinotto, Alessandro Galazzi, and Alvisa Palese. Investigating the biomechanics of falls in older ad ults in long-term care using a video camera: a scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 24(1):810, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Goodfellow, Y

I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville. Deep Learning, volume 1. MIT Press Cambridge, 2016

work page 2016