The relationship of plantar cutaneous sensation and standing balance post-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Stroke rehabilitation best practices recommend interventions to address individual deficits, guided by a comprehensive assessment to identify specific impairments. The relationship of motor impairments to balance has been well investigated, but the role of impaired plantar cutaneous sensation is less understood, despite the fact that 41% of individuals post-stroke have this deficit. The study objectives were to (1) characterize the relationship between plantar sensation and measures of standing balance control and (2) determine the threshold of sensory impairment related to balance impairment post-stroke. METHODS: Monofilament test scores, force plate measures of standing balance control and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores were extracted from 52 inpatient rehabilitation charts. Spearman correlations were conducted between sensation and balance measures. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was completed to determine the monofilament score that best discriminates between individuals with impaired and unimpaired balance (as defined by variability of center of pressure [COP] in the mediolateral direction). RESULTS: Plantar sensation of the affected foot was correlated with anteroposterior COP variability in standing with eyes closed and BBS scores. ROC analysis determined that a monofilament cut-off of 4.31 log(mg) discriminated individuals with impaired balance with 73% sensitivity and 70% specificity. DISCUSSION: The present results suggest that plantar cutaneous sensation deficits contribute to balance impairment post-stroke. The monofilament cutoff score may help clinicians determine whether impaired plantar cutaneous sensation is a contributing factor to a patient's balance deficits.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".