Center of pressure-based balance evaluation in individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a reliability study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of different balance task outcomes, based on center of pressure (COP) measures in individuals with Parkinson's disease. METHOD: In this cross-sectional study, 19 older individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (seven females, 71 ± 7.8 years) performed a set of seven balance tasks on two occasions (a week apart) on an electronic force platform. Each set consisted of: 1) Bipedal; 2) Romberg with open eyes (OE); 3) Romberg with closed eyes (CE); 4) Tandem with OE; 5) Tandem with CE; 6) Tandem with OE using a dual task (DT) condition (simple mathematic operations concomitant with testing); and 7) One-leg stance, with the leg of preference over the force platform, with OE. The test-retest reliability of COP measures was tested using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: The ICC results for the different tasks showed that the most reliable para- meters were derived from a 95% confidence ellipse around the COP and mean velocity, with the most reliable task being the Romberg with CE. Conclusions: We confirmed that balance based on COP measures was reliable in individuals with Parkinson's disease, especially during the Romberg condition with closed eyes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".