A Retrospective Analysis of Post-Stroke Berg Balance Scale Scores: How Should Normal and At-Risk Scores Be Interpreted?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) is a performance-based measure of standing balance commonly used by clinicians working with individuals post-stroke. Performance on the BBS can be influenced by compensatory strategies, but measures derived from two force plates can isolate compensatory strategies and thus better indicate balance impairment. This study examined BBS scores that reflect “normal” and disordered balance with respect to dual force-plate measures of standing balance in individuals post-stroke. Methods: BBS and force-plate measures were extracted from 75 patient charts. Individuals were classified by BBS score with respect to (1) age-matched normative values and (2) values that suggested increased risk of falls. Multiple analysis of variance was used to examine the effect of group assignment on force-plate measures of standing balance. Results: Individuals with BBS scores within and below normative values did not differ in force-plate measures. Individuals with BBS scores below the falls risk cutoff loaded their affected leg less than individuals with BBS scores above the cutoff. There were no other differences in force-plate measures between these two groups. Conclusions: BBS scores indicating either normal or disordered balance function are not necessarily associated with normal or disordered quiet standing-balance control measured by two force plates. This finding suggests that the BBS may reflect a capacity for compensation rather than any underlying impairments.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".