MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2366112843 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155418

Misalignment of the Desired and Measured Center of Pressure Describes Falls Caused by Slip during Turning

2016· article· en· W2366112843 on OpenAlexaff
Takeshi Yamaguchi, Hironari Higuchi, Hiroshi Onodera, Kazuo Hokkirigawa, Kei Masani

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlippingSlip (aerodynamics)Center of pressure (fluid mechanics)Computer scienceMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationMechanicsPhysicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, desired center of pressure (dCOP) was introduced to evaluate dynamic postural stability. The dCOP is defined as a virtual point on the ground, where the moment around the body center of mass (COM) becomes zero when dCOP and the measured COP (mCOP) coincide. We hypothesized that, when the misalignment of the dCOP and mCOP (dCOP-mCOP) increases up to a certain value due to a large perturbation during walking, it becomes difficult to make a compensatory step and to recover balance of COM and to continue gait. Here we tested this hypothesis in slipping during turning. The study involved twelve healthy young adult males with an average age of 21.5±1.9 yrs. The subjects were asked to (1) walk straight and turn 60 degrees to the right with the right foot (spin turn) on a dry floor surface, and (2) walk straight and 60 degrees spin turn to the right on a slippery lubricated surface. The dCOP-mCOP during turning in the slip trial with fall were significantly larger, particularly in x-direction (i.e., the medial-lateral direction during straight walk), than that in no-slip trial and slip trial without fall. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that the dCOP-mCOP in x-direction is good indicator of falling (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.93) and the threshold in the dCOP-mCOP in x-direction to distinguish for fall or no-fall was 0.55 m. These results support our hypothesis in slipping during turning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→