Postural Instability Is Associated with Brain Atrophy and Cognitive Impairment in the Elderly: The J-SHIPP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mobility impairment in older adults has been suggested to be a marker of subclinical structural and functional brain abnormalities. We investigated a possible association between static postural instability and brain abnormalities and cognitive decline. METHODS: The study subjects were 390 community residents without definitive dementia (67 +/- 7 years old) and 21 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Brain atrophy was measured by MRI. RESULTS: The mobility of the posturography-measured center of gravity (COG) was positively associated with the temporal horn area (THA; r = 0.260; p < 0.001). Subjects who could not stand on one leg for >40 s (n = 102) showed a significantly larger THA (22 +/- 18 vs. 14 +/- 11 x 10(-2) cm(2); p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis identified COG path length (beta = 0.118; p = 0.032) and one-leg standing time (beta = 0.176; p = 0.001) as independent determinants of THA. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects (n = 61) had a significantly enlarged THA compared to that of normal cognitive subjects (22 +/- 16 vs. 16 +/- 13 x 10(-2) cm(2); p = 0.002). AD patients showed a more enlarged THA (78 +/- 55 x 10(-2) cm(2)). Subjects with cognitive decline showed a significantly shorter one-leg standing time (normal: 50 +/- 17 s; MCI: 42 +/- 21 s; AD: 18 +/- 20s; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reduced postural stability was an independent marker of brain atrophy and pathological cognitive decline in the elderly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".