Dual-Task Elderly Gait of Prospective Fallers and Non-Fallers: A Wearable-Sensor Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearable sensors could facilitate point of care, clinically feasible assessments of dynamic stability and associated fall risk through an assessment of single-task (ST) and dual-task (DT) walking. This study investigated gait changes between ST and DT walking and between older adult prospective fallers and non-fallers. The results were compared to a study based on retrospective fall occurrence. Seventy-five individuals (75.2 ± 6.6 years; 47 non-fallers, 28 fallers; 6 month prospective fall occurrence) walked 7.62 m under ST and DT conditions while wearing pressure-sensing insoles and accelerometers at the head, pelvis, and on both shanks. DT-induced gait changes included changes in temporal measures, centre of pressure (CoP) path stance deviations and coefficient of variation, acceleration descriptive statistics, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) first quartile, ratio of even to odd harmonics, and maximum Lyapunov exponent. Compared to non-fallers, prospective fallers had significantly lower DT anterior⁻posterior CoP path stance coefficient of variation, DT head anterior⁻posterior FFT first quartile, ST left shank medial⁻lateral FFT first quartile, and ST right shank superior maximum acceleration. DT-induced gait changes were consistent regardless of faller status or when the fall occurred (retrospective or prospective). Gait differences between fallers and non-fallers were dependent on retrospective or prospective faller identification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".