Trunk Sway Measures of Postural Stability During Clinical Balance Tests: Effects of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The major disadvantage of current clinical tests that screen for balance disorders is a reliance on an examiner's subjective assessment of equilibrium control. To overcome this disadvantage we investigated, using quantified measures of trunk sway, age-related differences of normal subjects for commonly used clinical balance tests. METHODS: Three age groups were tested: young (15-25 years; n = 48), middle-aged (45-55 years; n = 50) and elderly (65-75 years; n = 49). Each subject performed a series of fourteen tasks similar to those included in the Tinetti and Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction in Balance protocols. The test battery comprised stance and gait tasks performed under normal, altered visual (eyes closed), and altered proprioceptive (foam support surface) conditions. Quantification of trunk sway was performed using a system that measured trunk angular velocity and position in the roll (lateral) and pitch (fore-aft) planes at the level of the lower back. Ranges of sway amplitude and velocity were examined for age-differences with ANOVA techniques. RESULTS: A comparison between age groups showed several differences. Elderly subjects were distinguished from both middle-aged and young subjects by the range of trunk angular sway and angular velocity because both were greater in roll and pitch planes for stance and stance-related tasks (tandem walking). The most significant age group differences (F = 30, p <.0001) were found for standing on one leg on a normal floor or on a foam support surface with eyes open. Next in significance was walking eight tandem steps on a normal floor (F = 13, p <.0001). For gait tasks, such as walking five steps while rotating or pitching the head or with eyes closed, pitch and roll velocity ranges were influenced by age with middle-aged subjects showing the smallest ranges followed by elderly subjects and then young subjects (F = 12, p <.0001). Walking over a set of low barriers also yielded significant differences between age groups for duration and angular sway. In contrast, task duration was the only variable significantly influenced when walking up and down a set of stairs. An interesting finding for all tasks was the different spread of values for each population. Population distributions were skewed for all ages and broadened with age. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate measurement of trunk angular sway during stance and gait tasks provides a simple way of reliably measuring changes in balance stability with age and could prove useful when screening for balance disorders of those prone to fall.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".