Loss of Peripheral Sensory Function Explains Much of the Increase in Postural Sway in Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postural sway increases with age and peripheral sensory disease. Whether peripheral sensory function is related to postural sway independent of age in healthy adults is unclear. Here we investigated the relationship between tests of visual function (VISFIELD), vestibular function (CANAL or OTOLITH), proprioceptive function (PROP), and age, with center of mass sway area (COM) measured with eyes open then closed on firm and then a foam surface. A cross-sectional sample of 366 community dwelling healthy adults from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging was tested. Multiple linear regressions examined the association between COM and VISFIELD, PROP, CANAL, and OTOLITH separately and in multi-sensory models controlling for age and gender. PROP dominated sensory prediction of sway across most balance conditions (β’s = 0.09-0.19, p’s < 0.001), except on foam eyes closed where CANAL function loss was the only significant sensory predictor of sway (β = 2.12, p < 0.016). Age was not a consistent predictor of sway. This suggests loss of peripheral sensory function explains much of the age-associated increase in sway.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".