Characterization of Balance Control After Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Longitudinal Recovery Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Balance impairments after traumatic brain injury (TBI) are common and persist after injury. Postural asymmetries in balance have been reported, but not quantified, across recovery. Objective: The objective of this study was to characterize balance recovery after moderate to severe TBI, with a focus on postural asymmetry. Design: A secondary analysis of prospectively collected data was used in this study. Methods: Data were from 45 participants with moderate to severe TBI. Participants' balance in 2 bipedal stances and 2 unipedal stances was assessed with force plates at approximately 2, 5, and 12 months after injury. Single-visit data from participants who were matched for age and served as healthy controls were collected for visual comparison using 95% confidence intervals. Spatial and temporal center-of-pressure (COP) measures were calculated from force plates in the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions. Results: Despite improvements in net ML COP postural sway from 2 to 5 months after injury, there were no changes in AP postural sway across recovery. Postural sway in individuals with TBI was higher than normative values at all time points in both directions. Interlimb synchrony did not change across recovery in either direction. TBI weight-bearing asymmetry was lower than normative values at all time points and did not change across recovery. The characteristics of unipedal stance differed between limbs. Limitations: Sample size was reduced as a result of the inclusion and exclusion criteria; future studies will benefit from a larger sample size. Conclusions: The absence of recovery in ML COP postural sway, interlimb synchrony, and weight-bearing symmetry indicated that reduced ML control may contribute to balance impairments after TBI. These impairments may extend to dynamic balance tasks and may also place individuals with TBI at a higher risk for falls.
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) | 0.000 | 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".