Impact of the Number of Steps on the Fukuda Stepping Test in Older Adults
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to compare performance, within-subject variability and test–retest reliability between the 50-step and 100-step Fukuda test in healthy older adults. Methods: Fifty participants aged between 65 and 75 years performed three trials of both the 50- and 100-step tests on two separate sessions seven days apart. Their final foot position was measured relative to the starting line. Results: Absolute values of body rotation and lateral and longitudinal displacements were significantly larger on the 100-step than on the 50-step test. The mean standard deviations of these measures on the three trials were significantly larger on the 100- compared to the 50-step test, indicating larger within-subject variability. Intraclass correlation coefficients were similar for both tests, suggesting comparable test–retest reliability. Conclusion: The 50-step test is recommended over the 100-step as it may have reduced measurement error.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it