P3‐005: BALANCE ABILITY AND COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT INFLUENCE SUSTAINED WALKING IN AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overall, long-term care residents experience declines in physical activity due to chronic conditions, other health problems, and characteristics of the environment. However, residents with cognitive impairment (CI) have increased walking activity compared to their counterparts with no CI. Given that the walking activity of older adults in an assisted living environment is not well understood, the purpose of this study was to determine the influence of CI, gait quality, and balance ability on walking distance and speed in an assisted living facility. This was a longitudinal cohort study of institutionalized older adults (N=26; 555 observations) followed for up to 8 months. Hierarchical linear modeling statistical techniques were used to examine the effects of gait quality and balance ability (using the Tinetti Gait and Balance Test) and cognitive status (using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment) on walking activity (distance, sustained distance, sustained speed). The latter were measured objectively and continuously by a real-time locating system (RTLS). A one-point increase in balance ability was associated with an 8% increase in sustained walking distance (p≤0.05) and a 4% increase in sustained gait speed (p≤0.001). Residents with moderate (ERR=2.34;p≤0.01) or severe CI (ERR=1.62; p=0.06) had longer sustained walking distances at slower speeds when compared to residents with no CI. After accounting for cognitive status, it was balance ability, not gait quality, that was a determinant of sustained walking distances and speeds. Therefore, balance interventions for older adults in assisted living may enable sustained walking activity. For the many residents with severe CI and balance impairments, preventing sustained walking in the form of wandering behavior may prevent adverse events, including fall-related injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".