Trunk Sway Measures of Postural Stability During Clinical Balance Tests in Patients With Chronic Whiplash Injury Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Trunk sway occurring during clinical stance and gait tasks was compared between a group of subjects with a chronic whiplash injury, resulting from an automobile collision, and a normal collective. OBJECTIVES: To examine if population specific trunk sway patterns for stance and gait could be identified for chronic whiplash injury patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Our previous work has established that it is possible to identify specific patterns of stance and gait deficits for vestibular loss (both acute and compensated) patients and those with Parkinson's disease. Our question was whether it was possible to use the same stance and gait tasks to identify patterns of trunk sway differences with respect to those of healthy subjects and individuals with a chronic whiplash injury. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects with history of whiplash injury and 170 healthy age-matched control subjects participated in the study. Trunk sway angular displacements in chronic whiplash patients were assessed for a number of stance and gait tasks similar to those of the Tinetti and Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (CTSIB) protocols. We used a lightweight, easy-to-attach, body-worn apparatus to measure trunk angular displacements and velocities in the roll (lateral) and the pitch (forward-backward) planes. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed several significant differences between the two groups. A pattern could be identified, showing greater trunk sway for stance tasks and for complex gait tasks that required task-specific gaze control such as walking up and down stairs. Trunk sway was less, however, for simple gait tasks that demanded large head movements but no task-specific gaze control, such as walking while rotating the head. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects who have a chronic whiplash injury show a characteristic pattern of trunk sway that is different from that of other patient groups with balance disorders. Balance was most unstable during gait involving task-specific head movements which possibly enhance a pathologic vestibulo-cervical interaction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".