Low Cognitive Status Is Associated with a Lower Ability to Maintain Standing Balance in Elderly Outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence is emerging that cognitive performance is involved in maintaining balance and thereby involved in falls in the elderly. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of cognitive status with measures of standing balance in elderly outpatients. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 197 community-dwelling elderly [mean age (SD) 81.9 (7.1) years] referred to a geriatric outpatient clinic were included and subsequently dichotomized into a group with low and normal cognitive status based on cut-off values of the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Visual Association Test. The ability to maintain standing balance as well as the center of pressure (CoP) movement were assessed during 10 s of side-by-side, semi-tandem and tandem stance with eyes open and eyes closed. Logistic and linear regression were used to examine the association between cognitive status and measures of standing balance adjusted for age, gender and highest completed education. RESULTS: Low cognitive status in elderly outpatients was associated with a lower ability to maintain 10 s of balance in side-by-side stance with eyes closed [OR (95% CI): 3.57 (1.60; 7.97)] and in semi-tandem stance with eyes open and eyes closed [OR (95% CI): 3.93 (1.71; 9.00) and OR (95% CI): 2.32 (1.11; 4.82), respectively]. Cognitive status was not associated with CoP movement. CONCLUSION: Low cognitive status associates with a lower ability to maintain standing balance in more demanding standing conditions in elderly outpatients. This may have implications for routine geriatric screening strategies and interpretation of results of either standing balance or cognitive tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".