Evaluation of postural stability in elderly with diabetic neuropathy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare clinical and biomechanical characteristics of balance in diabetic polyneuropathic elderly patients and normal age-matched subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifteen elderly with distal neuropathy (DNP) and 15 healthy age-matched subjects were evaluated with the biomechanical variable COP-COM, which represents the distance between the center of pressure (COP) and the center of mass (COM). Measurements were taken in the quiet position with a double-leg stance, in eyes-open (EO) and eyes-closed (EC) conditions. Subjects were also assessed with clinical balance evaluations. RESULTS: The COP-COM variable was statistically significantly larger in the DNP group than in the healthy group in anterior-posterior (A/P) and medial-lateral (M/L) directions. Furthermore, the DNP group showed statistically significantly larger amplitudes of the COP-COM variable without vision. The severity of the neuropathy, as quantified using the Valk scoring system, was correlated with COP-COM amplitude in both directions. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the postural stability of an elderly diabetic population using the COP-COM variable can detect a very small change in postural stability and could be helpful in identifying elderly with DNP at risk of falling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".