MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520297150 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.08.029

Reliability and Repetition Effect of the Center of Pressure and Kinematics Parameters That Characterize Trunk Postural Control During Unstable Sitting Test

2016· article· en· W2520297150 on OpenAlexaff
David Barbado, Janice M. Moreside, Francisco J. Vera-García

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)SittingTrunkPhysical medicine and rehabilitationKinematicsReliability (semiconductor)MedicinePhysical therapyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although unstable seat methodology has been used to assess trunk postural control, the reliability of the variables that characterize it remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To analyze reliability and learning effect of center of pressure (COP) and kinematic parameters that characterize trunk postural control performance in unstable seating. The relationships between kinematic and COP parameters also were explored. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability design. SETTINGS: Biomechanics laboratory setting. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three healthy male subjects. METHODS: ) using 3 methods: (1) comparing the last trial score of each day; (2) comparing the best trial score of each day; and (3) calculating the average of the three last trial scores of each day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Standard deviation and mean velocity were calculated to assess balance performance. RESULTS: Although analyses of variance showed some differences in balance performance between days, these differences were not significant between days 2 and 3. Best result and average methods showed the greatest reliability. Mean velocity of the COP showed high reliability (0.71 < ICC < 0.86; 10.3 < SEM < 13.0), whereas standard deviation only showed a low to moderate reliability (0.37 < ICC < 0.61; 14.5 < SEM < 23.0). Regarding the kinematic variables, only pelvis displacement mean velocity achieved a high reliability using the average method (0.62 < ICC < 0.83; 18.8 < SEM < 23.1). Correlations between COP and kinematics were high only for mean velocity (0.45 <r < 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: A familiarization session should be performed to overcome learning effect. COP parameters showed a better reliability than kinematics ones. Specifically, mean velocity of COP showed the highest test-retest reliability, especially for the average and best methods. Although correlations between COP and mean joint angular velocity were high, the few relationships between COP and kinematic standard deviation suggest different postural behavior can lead to a similar balance performance during an unstable sitting protocol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207