Elderly Nursing Home and Day Care Participants Are Less Likely Than Young Adults to Approach Imbalance During Voluntary Forward Reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to determine whether differences exist between young and elderly adults in cautiousness or tendency to approach imbalance during a forward reaching task. Young (n = 26) and elderly (n = 25) adults participated in trials that required them to reach forward as quickly as possible to contact a target that moved back and forth, in and out of reach. "Voluntary reach" was calculated as the 75th percentile in reach distance over 20 trials. Measures were also acquired separately of "maximum attainable reach." Voluntary reach averaged 53% smaller in elderly than young subjects. This was due to differences in maximum attainable reach, and to increased cautiousness among elderly in approaching maximum attainable reach (voluntary reach averaged 65% +/- 23% of maximum attainable reach in elderly, and 95% +/- 5% in young; p < .001). Thus, cautiousness in approaching imbalance reduces voluntary reach in elderly but not young subjects. Furthermore, physical capacity (as measured by maximum attainable reach) and capacity utilization (as measured by voluntary reach) are independent predictors of reaching behavior among nursing home elderly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".