Relationships Between Balance and Cognition in Patients With Subjective Cognitive Impairment, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balance impairments are common in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), but which aspects of balance are affected, at which stage of cognitive impairment, and their associations with cognitive domains remain unexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were: (1) to explore differences in balance abilities among patients with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild AD, and moderate AD and (2) to examine the relationship between the various aspects of balance and cognitive domains. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Home-dwelling patients with SCI or MCI (n=33), mild AD (n=99), and moderate AD (n=38) participated in this study. The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), comprising 6 subscales-"Biomechanical Constraints," "Stability Limits/Verticality," "Anticipatory Postural Adjustments," "Postural Responses," "Sensory Orientation," and "Stability in Gait"-was used to assess balance. Cognitive domains were assessed using the following measures: Mini-Mental Status Examination, Word-List Learning Test from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD), Verbal Fluency Test, Clock Drawing Test, and Trail Making Test, parts A and B (TMT-A and TMT-B, respectively). Two-way between-group analyses of variance, adjusted for age, were used to analyze differences among the groups. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to explore the associations between balance and cognition. RESULTS: Differences were found between the groups on all BESTest subscales; the moderate AD group had the worst scores. The TMT-B (measuring executive function) was associated with all of the BESTest subscales after controlling for demographic factors. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design hampered interpretation of the development of balance impairments. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that all aspects of balance control deteriorate with increasing severity of cognitive impairment and that executive function plays an important role in balance control. Physical therapists should pay attention to these findings both in clinical practice and in future research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".