Quantifying Dynamic Balance in Young, Elderly and Parkinson's Individuals: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Falling is one of the primary concerns for people with Parkinson’s Disease and occurs predominately during dynamic movements such as walking. Several methods have been proposed to quantify dynamic balance and to assess fall risk. However, no consensus has been reached concerning which method is most appropriate for examining walking balance during unperturbed and perturbed conditions, particularly in Parkinson’s Disease individuals. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to assess the current literature on quantifying dynamic balance in healthy young, elderly and Parkinson’s individuals during unperturbed and perturbed walking. Methods: The PubMed database was searched by title and abstract for publications quantifying dynamic balance during unperturbed and mechanically perturbed walking conditions in elderly adults and PD. Inclusion criteria required publications to be published in English, be available in full-text, and implement a dynamic balance quantification method. Exclusion criteria included clinical dynamic balance measures, non-mechanical perturbations, pathologies other than PD, and dual-tasking conditions. The initial database search yielded 280 articles, however, only 81 articles were included after title, abstract and full-text screening. Methodological quality and data were extracted from publications included in the final synthesis. Results: The dynamic balance articles included 26 Coefficient of Variation of Spatiotemporal Variability, 10 Detrended Fluctuation Analysis, 20 Lyapunov Exponent, 7 Maximum Floquet Multipliers, 17 Extrapolated Center of Mass, 11 Harmonic Ratios, 4 Center of Mass-Center of Pressure Separation, 2 Gait Stability Ratio, 1 Entropy, 3 Spatiotemporal Variables, 2 Center of Gravity and Center of Pressure, and 2 Root Mean Square in the final synthesis. Assessment of methodological quality determined that 58 articles had a low methodological rating, a 22 moderate rating, and 1 having a high rating. Conclusion: Careful consideration must be given when selecting a method to quantify dynamic balance because each method defines balance differently, reflects a unique aspect of neuromuscular stability mechanisms, and is dependent on the walking condition (unperturbed vs. perturbed). Therefore, each method provides distinct information into stability impairment in elderly and PD individuals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".