Centre of pressure during quiet stance and dual-task one month after mild traumatic brain injury: In adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mild traumatic brain injury is a common neurological condition affecting adolescents in North America. In adults, symptoms related to balance are some of the most commonly reported. Methods The purpose of this study was to investigate the balance in adolescents with mild traumatic brain injury using linear and non-linear centre of pressure (COP) measures in quiet stance and during dual-task. Adolescents aged 13.00 to 17.99 years were tested once at one month following mild traumatic brain injury (n = 25), and healthy adolescents (n = 22) were tested once as controls in four conditions: standing with eyes open, standing with eyes closed, standing on a single leg and standing while performing a visual Stroop task. Results In general, compared to healthy adolescents, adolescents with mild traumatic brain injury demonstrated more variability ( p = 0.007, 95% CI (0.9, 5.4) and p = 0.049, 95% CI (0.009, 4.0), mediolateral and anteroposterior, respectively), showed more cumulative movement (path length, p = 0.016, 95% CI (1.3, 11.9)) and required greater speed of movement ( p = 0.012, 95% CI (0.99, 7.4) and p = 0.035, 95% CI (0.28, 7.5), mediolateral and anteroposterior, respectively) in maintaining balance, and in underlying temporal organization showed less local stability (mediolateral largest Lyapunov, p = 0.033, 95% CI (0.001, 0.027)), more short-term complexity anteroposteriorly ( p = 0.029, 95% CI (0.005, 0.099)) and less long-term complexity mediolaterally ( p = 0.001, 95% CI (0.015, 0.056)). Condition differences are additionally presented. Conclusions Findings suggest that, for adolescents with mild traumatic brain injury, when maintaining balance visual input is relied on differently, the effectiveness of control may be an issue during dual-task, and consequently, the challenge of dual-task may be on par with single leg stance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".