Lateral Trunk Displacement and Stability During Sit-to-Stand Transfer in Relation to Foot Placement in Patients With Hemiparesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In hemiparetic individuals, sit-to-stand (STS) transfer is characterized by asymmetric weight-bearing and altered trunk kinematics that can be improved by positioning the affected foot behind the nonaffected one. OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of frontal trunk kinematics on medio-lateral displacements of the center of pressure (CP) during STS performed with the feet placed in 2 different positions, as well as relationships between these parameters, medio-lateral stability, and clinical scores of the participants. METHODS: Eighteen patients with chronic stroke and 15 control individuals were evaluated during sit-to-stand transfers either in spontaneous foot position or with their affected or dominant foot placed behind, respectively. Medio-lateral CP, pelvis, and shoulder displacement were analyzed using 3D kinematic and kinetic data recordings of the whole task. Motor and sensory impairment, spasticity, muscle strength, and equilibrium were evaluated by standard scales. The possible time during which a participant could prevent a fall (minimal time-to-contact) was used as a stability index. RESULTS: Spontaneously, the deviation of the CP of stroke participants paralleled the tilt of the trunk toward the nonaffected side, as early as the first third of the task. With the affected foot placed behind, trunk position did not differ from those of control participants who executed the transfer spontaneously. Hemiparetic participants were less stable than control participants. Placement of the feet had no significant effect on the stability of either group. Stability was strongly associated with better motor scores on the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In hemiparetic individuals, improving STS symmetry by positioning the affected foot behind the nonaffected one did not decrease medio-lateral stability, which was associated with the level of stroke-related motor impairments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".