Effects of the Direction of Turning on the Timed Up & Go Test with Stroke Subjects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the Timed Up & Go (TUG) test between subjects with and without hemiparesis, considering the direction toward which they turned, and to determine the potential clinical variables that could explain possible observed differences between the groups and/or the turning directions. METHOD: Twenty-two hemiparetic and 22 matched control subjects performed the TUG twice, with each one turning in both directions. Measures of the strength and tonus of the quadriceps, gait speed, balance, and fear of falling were also collected. RESULTS: Stroke subjects were slower in the TUG than the control group, independent of the direction toward which they turned (F = 45.87; p < .001). For both groups, similar performances were observed when turning toward the paretic and nonparetic/matched sides (F = 0.50; p = .48). The absolute differences between the two TUG trials were greater for the stroke subjects (p = .001) and were significantly correlated with gait speed, balance, and fear of falling (-0.69 < r < - 0.52; p < .013), with fear of falling being the only variable retained in the regression model (R2 = 0.44; p = .001). For the control subjects, no significant correlations were found. CONCLUSIONS: The larger differences between the two TUG trials for the stroke subjects illustrated the impact of the turning direction on test performance. These differences were not related to hemiparesis, but to the fear of falling.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it