Postural Strategies in Diabetes Patients with Peripheral Neuropathy Determined Using Cross-Correlation Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although postural control strategies have been largely explored in diabetes patients with peripheral neuropathy, the literature on their postural control strategies related to peripheral neuropathy level and task complexity is still limited. The aim of this study is then to investigate how balance task difficulty influences postural strategies in diabetes patients with peripheral neuropathy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Postural strategies and instability were evaluated in 25 diabetes patients during four standing tasks. The root mean square value of the anterior-posterior angular velocity, measured at the trunk and the ankle, was investigated and analyzed using cross-correlation functions (CCFs). Correlations between balance and clinical variables were analyzed. RESULTS: A significant decrease in CCFs between trunk and ankles was observed under dynamic balance conditions. Correlations were observed between postural strategies and balance instability with the level of peripheral neuropathy and with hip and ankle strength. CONCLUSION: Postural strategies are influenced by more demanding standing tasks and correlated with the level of peripheral neuropathy and strength of muscles in diabetes patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".