Impact of Limb Loading Asymmetry during Walking on Hip and Knee Function in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The aim of this study is to determine the impact of limb loading asymmetry while walking on hip and knee function in community-dwelling older adults. Our findings suggest that increased asymmetry of limb loading on midfoot during walking is a predictor of deterioration in hip and knee function. Given that biofeedback of limb loading has been reported to help improve movement patterns, providing biofeedback to patients with OA during exercise may prevent deterioration in hip and knee function. The findings of the present study have important implications for the prevention and management of hip and knee function deterioration in the community-dwelling older adults. Participants aged ≥ 65 years were registered at a community-based health check investigation in Fukushima, Japan They completed questionnaires on their medical history, underwent physical tests at baseline (T0; n = 98 [82 female]; mean age 74.8 ± 5.7 years), and were then prospectively followed for one year (T1; n = 67). The primary outcome measure was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) at T0 and T1, and was defined as the WOMAC delta score (the WOMAC summary score at T0 minus the WOMAC summary score at T1). Limb loading was measured using force sensing insoles capable of measuring three foot regions (rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot) as well as overall during a ten-meter walking test, and was defined as peak force asymmetry (PFA) and impulse asymmetry (IA) at T0. Associations between changes in WOMAC scores and both PFA and IA on three foot regions and overall were determined using correlation analyses. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed with changes in WOMAC scores as the outcome variable, PFA and/or IA of any region as the explanatory variables, and age, sex, body height and weight, foot posture, and walking speed as confounding variables. Overall PFA and midfoot IA were significantly correlated with changes in WOMAC scores (r = 0.244, r = 0.047; r = -0.290, r = 0.017, respectively). Multiple linear regression analysis with overall PFA and midfoot IA identified that the only characteristic retained was midfoot IA (β = -0.290, 95% CI: -0.685 to -0.068, p = 0.017).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle