## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & **Fallers** & **Non-fallers** & & \\  & \(n\) **= 22** & \(n\) **= 38** & & \\ \hline  & \(n\) **(\%)** & \(n\) **(\%)** & & \\ \hline Female & 19 (86.4\%) & 33 (86.8\%) & & \\ Male & 3 (13.6\%) & 5 (13.2\%) & & \\ \hline  & Mean (SD) or & Mean (SD) or & & \\  & Median (Q1–Q3) & Median (Q1–Q3) & Cohen’s \(d\) & _p_-Value \\ \hline Age (years) & 65.50 (62.00–71.00) & 67.50 (64.00–70.25) & 0.70 & 0.210 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Boby mass (kg) & 68.75 (63.37–74.55) & 59.17 (68.67–75.55) & 1.49 & 0.645 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Height (m) & 1.54 (0.06) & 1.56 (0.07) & 0.31 & 0.187 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 29.55 (3.96) & 28.07 (5.03) & 0.32 & 0.244 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Gait speed (m/s) & 1.32 (0.14) & 1.34 (0.16) & 0.13 & 0.512 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Conventional TUG (s) & 9.15 (9.99–11.25) & 8.45 (9.55–10.90) & 0.72 & 0.398 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Cognitive TUG (s) & 10.77 (12.20–14.12) & 10.47 (12.25–14.50) & 0.19 & 0.860 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Effect of TUGCog (\%) & \(-\)0.17 (\(-\)0.39—0.08) & \(-\)0.40 (\(-\)0.25—0.08) & 1.35 & 0.623 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ STS-5X (s) & 13.70 (11.55–15.72) & 14.35 (11.47–16.25) & \(-\)0.19 & 0.724 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ AFRT (cm) & 16.44 (3.35) & 16.73 (3.42) & 0.07 & 0.785 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ TMT-A (s) & 57.80 (44.87–66.47) & 63.69 (50.30–87.80) & \(-\)0.24 & 0.129 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ TMT-B (s) & 137.00 (92.67–224.25) & 176.71 (120.77–227.62) & \(-\)0.46 & 0.211 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Effect of TMTB (\%) & \(-\)141.91 –(274.31—78.10) & \(-\)160.72 (\(-\)257.78—77.67) & 0.14 & 0.914 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ BW Stroop Test (s) & 33.30 (30.40–40.60) & 35.90 (31.82–39.65) & \(-\)0.40 & 0.500 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Color Stroop Test (s) & 87.40 (70.85–113.95) & 78.00 (65.46–91.35) & 0.38 & 0.308 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ Color Stroop Effect (\%) & \(-\)153.24 (\(-\)243.37—99.04) & \(-\)138.41 (\(-\)154.82—86.20) & \(-\)0.19 & 0.133 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ ABC Scale (0 to 100\%) & 71.14 (15.58) & 70.45 (20.35) & 0.04 & 0.892 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ FES-I (16 to 64 points) & 29.00 (21.00–30.00) & 25.00 (21.00–32.25) & 0.51 & 0.817 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ GDS (0 to 15 points) & 3.50 (2.00–5.00) & 3.50 (2.00–6.25) & 0.00 & 0.551 \(\lx@sectionsign\) \\ \hline  & SD: Standard deviation; Q1: Quartile 1; Q3: Quartile 3; BMI: Body mass; TUG: Timed Up and Go test; STS-5X: Sit-to-Stent Test 5 Times from a chair; AFRT: Anterior Functional Reach Test; TMT: Trail Making Test; BW: Black and White; ABC: Activities-Specific Balance Confidence, FES-I: Falls Efficacy Scale–International; CDS: Geriatric Depression Scale. \(\lx@sectionsign\) Intergroup comparison performed using the Mann–Whitney U test, with central tendency and dispersion measures represented by the median and interquartile range, respectively. \(\lx@paragraphsign\) Intergroup comparison performed using the \(l\)-test, with central tendency and dispersion measures represented by the mean and standard deviation, respectively. & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Univariate comparisons of demographic, anthropometric, functional, and clinical outcomes of caller and non-faller groups. Figure 1: Clinical and functional profile of the faller (label 1) and non-faller (label 0) groups. Figure 2 shows the result of the proposed model's confusion matrix. Of the 22 participants who self-reported falls in the last 12 months, the model classified 17 (77%) as fallers (sensitivity for class \(1\); fallers). The results presented in Table 2 show that the model has better sensitivity in identifying fallers (0.77) and a lower sensitivity in identifying non-fallers (0.39). Regarding precision, the model showed better effectiveness in the proportion of non-falling positive examples (0.75).