MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897506268 · doi:10.1159/000492931

Mild Cognitive Impairment Affects Obstacle Negotiation in Older Adults: Results from “Gait and Brain Study”

2018· article· en· W2897506268 on OpenAlexafffund
Frederico Pieruccini‐Faria, Yanina Sarquis‐Adamson, Manuel Montero‐Odasso

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionPsychologyObstaclePoison controlTask (project management)Fear of fallingPreferred walking speedCognitive declineInjury preventionPhysical therapyMedicineDementiaPsychiatryDiseaseMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) are at higher risk of falls and injuries, but the underlying mechanism is poorly understood. Inappropriate anticipatory postural adjustments to overcome balance perturbations are affected by cognitive decline. However, it is unknown whether anticipatory gait control to avoid an obstacle is affected in MCI. OBJECTIVE: Using the dual-task paradigm, we aim to assess whether gait control is affected during obstacle negotiation challenges in older adults with MCI. METHODS: Seventy-nine participants (mean age = 72.0 ± 2.7 years; women = 30.3%) from the "Gait and Brain Study" were included in this study (controls = 27; MCI = 52). In order to assess the anticipatory control behaviour for obstacle negotiation, a 6-m electronic walkway embedded with sensors recorded foot prints to measure gait speed and step length variability, during early (3 steps before the late phase) and late (3 steps before the obstacle) pre-crossing phases of an ad hoc obstacle, set at 15% of participant's height. Participants walked under single- and dual-task gait (counting backwards by 1's from 100 while walking) conditions. Three-way mixed repeated-measures analysis of variance models examined differences in gait performance between groups when transitioning between pre-crossing phases towards an obstacle during single- and dual-task conditions. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, years of education, lower limb function, fear of falling, medical status, depressive symptoms, baseline gait speed and executive function. RESULTS: A significant three-way interaction among groups, pre-crossing phases and task showed that participants with MCI attenuated the gait deceleration (p = 0.02) and performed fewer step length adjustments (p = 0.03) when approaching the obstacle compared with controls while dual-tasking. These interactions were attenuated when executive function performance was added as a covariate in the adjusted statistical model. CONCLUSION: Older adults with MCI attenuate the anticipatory gait adjustments needed to avoid an obstacle when dual-tasking. Deficits in higher-order cognitive processing may limit obstacle negotiation capabilities in MCI populations, being a potential falls risk factor.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontologySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207