Is Impaired Control of Reactive Stepping Related to Falls During Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with stroke fall more often than age-matched controls. Although many focus on the multifactorial nature of falls, the fundamental problem is likely the ability for an individual to generate reactions to recover from a loss of balance. Stepping reactions to recover balance are particularly important to balance recovery, and individuals with stroke have difficulty executing these responses to prevent a fall following a loss of balance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine if characteristics of balance recovery steps are related to falls during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of individuals with stroke attending inpatient rehabilitation (n = 136). Details of falls experienced during inpatient rehabilitation were obtained from incident reports, nursing notes, and patient interviews. Stepping reactions were evoked using a "release-from-lean" postural perturbation. Poisson regression was used to determine characteristics of stepping reactions that were related to increased fall frequency relative to length of stay. RESULTS: In all, 20 individuals experienced 29 falls during inpatient rehabilitation. The characteristics of stepping reactions significantly related to increased fall rates were increased frequency of external assistance to prevent a fall to the floor, increased frequency of no-step responses, increased frequency of step responses with inadequate foot clearance, and delayed time to initiate stepping responses. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired control of balance recovery steps is related to increased fall rates during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. This study informs the specific features of stepping reactions that can be targeted with physiotherapy intervention during inpatient rehabilitation to improve dynamic stability control and potentially prevent falls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".