Dual-Task Gait Performance Among Community-Dwelling Senior Women: The Role of Balance Confidence and Executive Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exploring factors that contribute to dual-task gait performance among seniors is of particular interest in falls prevention because dual-task-related gait changes are associated with increased falls risk. It is unclear currently which specific executive processes are most relevant to dual-task gait performance and whether "balance confidence" is independently associated with dual-task gait performance. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 140 senior women aged 65-75 years old. Balance confidence was assessed by the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence scale. Three key executive processes were assessed by standard neuropsychological tests: (i) set shifting, (ii) working memory, and (iii) response inhibition. Dual-task gait performance was assessed by the simple and complex versions of the walking while talking (WWT) test. Two linear regression models were constructed to determine the independent association of executive functions and balance confidence with: (i) simple WWT completion time and (ii) complex WWT completion time. RESULTS: Balance confidence was independently associated with both simple and complex WWT completion times after accounting for age, time to walk 40 ft without talking, and global cognition. Set shifting was independently associated with complex WWT completion time; no executive processes were independently associated with simple WWT completion time. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that balance confidence is independently associated with dual-task gait performance. Furthermore, executive functions do not play a significant role in dual-task gait performance when the concurrent cognitive load is low. Clinicians may need to consider balance confidence and executive functions in the assessment and rehabilitation of dual-task gait performance among community-dwelling seniors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".