Exploring the Role of Body Mass Index on Balance Reactions and Gait in Overweight Sedentary Middle-aged Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Being overweight is defined as having a body mass index greater than 25. Reduced postural control has been implicated in the presence of increased body mass index. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of body mass index on postural stability in healthy sedentary middle-aged adults. Based on body mass index, subjects were divided into 2 groups (25.00-27.49 and 27.50-29.99) to assess for differences in postural control. METHODS: Twenty healthy sedentary subjects between 40 and 64 years (13 women and 7 men) with a mean age of 52.45 years were recruited by convenience. After determination of body mass index, postural control was assessed on all subjects using the Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, gait speed measurement, and Biodex Stability Index testing. RESULTS: The Timed Up and Go Test duration was increased in these subjects when compared with normative data. Gait speed was also reduced in those subjects in the fifth and sixth decades when compared with established norms. Biodex SD balance system scores demonstrated reduced postural stability. A 2-tailed t test revealed no significant difference between body mass index ranges of 25.0 to 27.5 and 27.6 to 29.99. CONCLUSION: There may be increased risk for falls with increases in body mass short of obesity thresholds of body mass index 30% for this sedentary middle-aged adult population. Future studies, with larger groups of subjects, that address postural stability and body mass index are necessary. Although these subjects are younger, falls screening measures may prove beneficial as a prevention strategy for sedentary overweight middle-aged adults.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".