MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2404608464 · doi:10.1111/jgs.14115

Decrease in Upright Postural Sway from Open to Closed Eyes: Episodic Memory Impairment Matters, Too

2016· letter· en· W2404608464 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Beauchet, Elise J. Levinoff, Gilles Allali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineProprioceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEpisodic memoryBalance (ability)Postural instabilityDepression (economics)CognitionAudiologyPsychiatryDiseaseParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to maintain the body's center of gravity above a small base of support is defined by an upright stable posture characterized by body sways in the anterior–posterior (AP) and medial–lateral (ML) directions.1, 2 Maintaining an upright stable posture with closed eyes is challenging.3 The variation in postural sway from open to closed eyes is used as a measurement of balance impairment; a wide magnitude of variation is associated with greater postural instability.1-5 Poor lower limb proprioception and vision, and cognitive decline contribute to postural instability.4, 5 The specific effect of early memory decline on upright postural stability has been not fully examined. Gait instability has been associated with isolated episodic memory (category of declarative memory mainly related to autobiographical events that can be explicitly stated) impairment.6 It was hypothesized that episodic memory impairment would influence upright postural stability in individuals without dementia. This study aimed to determine whether episodic memory impairment was associated with large variation from open to closed eyes in static upright postural sway in individuals without dementia. Based on a cross-sectional design, 1,589 healthy community-dwelling individuals without dementia were recruited at the Health Examination Center, Lyon, France. Information was recorded on age (mean age 70.6 ± 4.9), sex (50.0% women), body mass index (BMI; mean 26.3 ± 4.2 kg/m2), number of drugs taken daily (mean 2.9 ± 2.5), and use of psychoactive drugs (benzodiazepines, antidepressants, neuroleptics; 18.7%). A four-item Geriatric Depression Scale score of 1 or greater (23.9%) was used to screen for depressive symptoms.7 Lower limb proprioception was evaluated using a graduated tuning fork placed on the tibial tuberosity.4 The mean proprioception value was obtained for the right and left lower extremities (6.3 ± 1.7/8). Distance binocular vision was measured at 5 m using a Monoyer letter chart (mean 7.1 ± 2.2/10).4 Fear of falling (FOF, 21.3%) was assessed by asking, "Are you afraid of falling?"8 History of falls (31.6%) over the past year was ascertained. Episodic memory was assessed using the short version of Mini-Mental State Examination, composed of three successive parts (free recall of 3 words, two short distractive tasks, delayed recall of 3 words). Scores ranged from 0 (worst) to 6 (best); a score of 5 or less (22.8%) designates poor episodic memory performance.9 Static upright postural sway on a firm surface was measured on a force platform (101 × 101 cm; BioRescue, Dune, Rodez, France).4 Participants were asked to maintain a barefoot standing position with eyes open for 30 seconds and closed for 30 seconds. Total upright postural sway in the AP and ML directions was recorded in millimeters. The variation from open to closed eyes was calculated using the following formula: ((AP + ML (eyes closed)) − (AP + ML (eyes open))/((AP + ML (eyes closed)) + (AP + ML (eyes open))/2)) × 100. The Lyon Sud-Est III local ethical committee approved the study. A multiple linear regression model (Table 1) was developed to examine the association between the variation from open to closed eyes in static upright postural sway (dependent variable) and participant characteristics (independent variables). Mean value of upright postural sway was 237.5 ± 207.1 mm when participants' eyes were open and 257.4 ± 228.1 mm when participants' eyes were closed. Older age (P < .001), higher BMI (P = .01), better vision (P < .001), FOF (P = .006), and history of falls (P = .01) were associated with greater postural sway from open to closed eyes, whereas greater lower-limb proprioception score (P < .001) and episodic memory impairment (P = .02) were associated with less postural sway. The main finding was that episodic memory impairment was associated with less upright postural sway when participants' eyes were closed than when their eyes were open. This finding may be interpreted as an early impairment associated with the highest levels of upright postural control. Postural instability is usually characterized by greater postural sway.1-5 These results confirm this statement in part because greater postural sway was found in participants with a history of falls and FOF, both factors usually associated with postural instability,4, 8 but less postural sway with memory impairment is an opposite unexpected motor behavior. Variability in postural sway is necessary to maintain upright posture.1-4 Therefore, this finding may be interpreted as an early dysfunction of static postural control related to episodic memory impairment. This result is in accordance with the fact that the hippocampus is involved in postural control through the activation of the "place cells" and the "head direction cells" during vestibular inputs.10 We are grateful to the participants for their cooperation. Conflict of Interest: The editor in chief has reviewed the conflict of interest checklist provided by the authors and has determined that the authors have no financial or any other kind of personal conflicts with this paper. Prof. Beauchet has served as an unpaid consultant for Ipsen Pharma company and as a board member for Gériatrie, Psychologie et Neuropsychiatrie du Vieillissement. He has no relevant financial interest in this manuscript. Author Contributions: Prof. Beauchet has full access to the study data. Beauchet, Allali: study concept and design: analysis and interpretation of data. Beauchet: acquisition of data; drafting of manuscript; statistical expertise; administrative, technical, material support. Levinoff, Allali: critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content. Allali: study supervision. Sponsor's Role: Not applicable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→