Fear of falling and postural control in Parkinson's disease
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
This study investigated the relationship between fear of falling (FOF) and qualitative and quantitative postural control in Parkinson's disease (PD). Fifty-eight nondemented PD patients were studied along with age-matched healthy controls. The degree of FOF was estimated using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale. Qualitative postural control was evaluated using a component of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale. Postural control was quantified, using centre of pressure measures obtained from a force plate, for eight standing balance tests of different challenges. The results showed that FOF was more evident for PD patients when compared with healthy individuals of similar age. Furthermore, FOF was significantly associated with a qualitative estimate of postural control in PD; individuals with PD who had a greater degree of posture impairment reported greater FOF. The results also showed that an estimate of FOF may help to explain quantitative postural instability in PD. FOF, when coupled with a qualitative estimate of postural control, was able to explain a greater amount of variation in quantitative balance performance for five of the eight balance tests. When considered independently, the qualitative measure of postural control, in general, could not well predict quantitative balance performance. The greater degree of FOF and its possible association with altered postural control suggests that FOF should be considered as an important, independent risk factor in the assessment and treatment of postural instability in patients with PD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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