Turning Stability in Individuals With Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although instability during turning is a disabling feature of Parkinson disease (PD), little is known about the associated postural characteristics. Our goals were to compare turning stability between individuals with PD and healthy individuals and to investigate whether dopaminergic medication improves turning stability. METHODS: Nineteen older adults with mild to moderate PD and 19 healthy individuals walked straight or walked and turned 180° to the right or left. The turning direction was visually cued before (preplanned) or during (unplanned) straight walking. Participants with PD were assessed off and on medication. As a proxy for mediolateral stability, we calculated the difference between pelvis lateral displacement and the lateral edge of the support base. RESULTS: While healthy individuals regulated mediolateral stability in a steady-state manner during turning, mediolateral stability in PD was reduced for crossover steps (narrow steps by the foot contralateral to the turning direction) and increased for side steps (widening steps by the foot ipsilateral to the turning direction) (P ≤ 0.008). Individuals with PD turned with narrower step width (P ≤ 0.024) and smaller pelvis displacement than healthy individuals (P ≤ 0.002). Dopaminergic medication only improved mediolateral stability while using side steps to initiate unplanned turns (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Turning stability was compromised in PD, but only for crossover steps with a narrow support base. As dopaminergic medication showed limited effect on turning stability, rehabilitation plays an important role to promote safe turning strategies with a specific emphasis on sustainment of a wide support base.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A236).
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".