BALANCE AND FUNCTIONAL MOBILITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN WITH OSTEOPOROSIS AND WOMEN WITHOUT OSTEOPOROSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this cross sectional study was to examine if there are differences between body balance and functional mobility between women with osteoporosis and women without osteoporosis. Impaired balance and functional mobility are commonly observed in those with osteoporosis and with normal aging. However, it is not clear whether those with osteoporosis have a greater impairment in their balance and functional mobility compared to their normal age-matched counterparts. Methods: Twenty four women between the ages of 64–75 (12 with osteoporosis; 12 controls) were assessed for balance (EquiTest, NeurCom), functional mobility (figure of 8 task), and quadriceps strength. The two groups were matched for age and level of physical activity (hours of physical activity per week). Osteoporosis was defined as a t-score equal to or less than 2.5 by DXA of the hip and/or lumbar spine. The independent t-test was used for between group comparisons. Level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: There were no significant differences in balance and functional mobility between the two groups. However, the control group demonstrated a trend towards having better balance than the osteoporotic group. Conclusions: Future studies using larger sample sizes are needed to delineate whether individuals with osteoporosis have a greater impairment in their balance and functional mobility compared to their counterparts without the disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".