MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167969280 · doi:10.1093/gerona/56.7.m438

Trunk Sway Measures of Postural Stability During Clinical Balance Tests: Effects of Age

2001· article· en· W2167969280 on OpenAlex
J.P.S. Gill, J.H.J. Allum, Mark G. Carpenter, Marta Held‐Ziółkowska, Allan L. Adkin, F. Honegger, Katarzyna Pierchała

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

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNovartis FoundationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTinetti testTrunkProprioceptionPosturographyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)Dynamic balanceForce platformGaitPsychologyPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.312 · 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