MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139238053 · doi:10.1093/gerona/57.4.b166

Avoidance and Accommodation of Surface Height Changes by Healthy, Community-Dwelling, Young, and Elderly Men

2002· article· en· W2139238053 on OpenAlexafffund
Bradford J. McFadyen, François Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversité LavalUniversité de SherbrookeCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationInstitut de Réadaptation en Déficience Physique de QuébecUniversité Laval
KeywordsSagittal planeGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAccommodationKinematicsSTRIDECoronal planeAge groupsPsychologyMedicineDemographyAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to compare avoidance and accommodation strategies during gait between healthy, community-dwelling, young and elderly males. Ten young (28.4 +/- 5.4 years) and ten elderly (69.5 +/- 6.1 years) males were tested while walking on the level, avoiding a 11.75-cm-high obstacle, and accommodating a change in floor height of 11.75 cm. Three dimensional, kinematic, and kinetic analyses were performed bilaterally. Both age groups used the same general sagittal plane strategies in order to avoid and accommodate the obstructions, but the elderly group had significantly reduced lead toe clearances. These riskier toe clearances by the elderly group were found to be due to limited, frontal plane pelvic motion, shorter stride lengths, and subtle differences in the interplay of lower limb energetic patterns within the sagittal plane. These results are discussed with respect to diminishing physical capacity in the elderly populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series ASame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207