MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2897375728 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2041

TD‐P‐025: IMPROVING MOVEMENT CONFIDENCE AND BALANCE IN PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA, MCI AND PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT USING GROUP MOTION–BASED TECHNOLOGY

2018· article· en· W2897375728 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Czarnuch, Erica Dove, Arlene Astell

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Eyes openDementiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapyHeelConfidence intervalMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using motion-based technology (MBT) to provide engaging leisure activities for people with dementia or MCI can offer benefits such as increased social and physical stimulation (Dove & Astell, 2017). MBT is increasingly being used to measure balance (Hsaoi, et al., 2017) and postural stability in health older adults (Dehbandi, et al., 2017). We aimed to use MBT in adult day centres with people with dementia, MCI or physical impairments as an engaging group activity, while also invoking an increase in movement confidence and balance. A 60-minute group bowling intervention was designed using the Xbox Kinect. Each bowling session was facilitated by a member of the research team, and involved participants taking turns bowling. Sessions were recorded by two video cameras and a 3D full-body Kinect-based tracking system. Pre- and post-balance were assessed using the abbreviated Romberg (feet together eyes open [R-EO], feet together eyes closed: [R-EC] and Sharpened Romberg test (heel-to-toe, eyes open [SR-EO], heel-to-toe, eyes closed [SR-EC]; Steffen, 2012) for 30 seconds each. Data were collected across three sites from 38 participants (mean age = 75.39; mean MoCa score = 12.47) collected over 64 sessions from April-October 2017. Comparison of baseline and post-groups Romberg scores showed significant improvement in R-EO (p<0.05) and R-EC (p<0.05). At baseline 7 and 12 participants could not complete SR-EO and SR-EC respectively, and after the group this was 10 and 12. For SR-EO there was a significant decline (p<0.05) but not in SR-EC (p=0.1). At baseline and post-group MoCA and SR combined scores were correlated (p=0.05). Further exploration of these data comprising objective measures of movement confidence and balance drawn from analysis of 3D tracking data, including trunk stability, gait, arm swing, and movement speed are underway for the first site. Study design, setup, proof of concept of multi-modal mixed-methods data collection and preliminary data will be presented. Group interventions using MBT with people with dementia, MCI or physical impairment can be fun and engaging. Early findings from our study suggest that this group intervention may lead to an improvement in movement confidence and balance, determined by both researcher observation and preliminary empirical data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→