MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113678519 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090070

Effect of a Perturbation-Based Balance Training Program on Compensatory Stepping and Grasping Reactions in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2010· article· en· W2113678519 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationBalance trainingPsychologyPerturbation (astronomy)Physical therapyMedicineSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Compensatory stepping and grasping reactions are prevalent responses to sudden loss of balance and play a critical role in preventing falls. The ability to execute these reactions effectively is impaired in older adults. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a perturbation-based balance training program designed to target specific age-related impairments in compensatory stepping and grasping balance recovery reactions. DESIGN: This was a double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at research laboratories in a large urban hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty community-dwelling older adults (aged 64-80 years) with a recent history of falls or self-reported instability participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a 6-week perturbation-based (motion platform) balance training program or a 6-week control program involving flexibility and relaxation training. MEASUREMENTS: Features of balance reactions targeted by the perturbation-based program were: (1) multi-step reactions, (2) extra lateral steps following anteroposterior perturbations, (3) foot collisions following lateral perturbations, and (4) time to complete grasping reactions. The reactions were evoked during testing by highly unpredictable surface translation and cable pull perturbations, both of which differed from the perturbations used during training. RESULTS: /b> Compared with the control program, the perturbation-based training led to greater reductions in frequency of multi-step reactions and foot collisions that were statistically significant for surface translations but not cable pulls. The perturbation group also showed significantly greater reduction in handrail contact time compared with the control group for cable pulls and a possible trend in this direction for surface translations. LIMITATIONS: Further work is needed to determine whether a maintenance program is needed to retain the training benefits and to assess whether these benefits reduce fall risk in daily life. CONCLUSION: Perturbation-based training shows promise as an effective intervention to improve the ability of older adults to prevent themselves from falling when they lose their balance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it