A pilot study of postural stability testing using controls: the modified BESS protocol integrated with an H-pattern visual screen and fixed gaze coupled with cervical range of motion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate baseline postural stability of a normal healthy population using the modified balance error scoring system (M-BESS) integrated with H-pattern testing (HP) and cervical range of motion with fixed ocular gaze (CROM). METHODS: Postural error scores for twelve participants were scored during each twenty second trial of the M-BESS protocol stances (double-leg [DL], tandem [TL] and single-leg [SL]). Participants also completed the same M-BESS protocol with the inclusion of HP and CROM conditions for a total of nine trials. RESULTS: The total mean ± standard deviation and median of errors within each condition were not different (M-BESS 2.6 ± 2.1, 2.0; HP 1.3 ± 1.1, 2.0; CROM 2.0 ± 2.0, 2.0; p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Although a small sample size, our findings suggest that with normal, healthy, subjects challenging their visual input and cervical range of motion while balancing gives you a similar number of errors as the standard M-BESS protocol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".