MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928401409 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00313

Comprehensive Quantitative Spatiotemporal Gait Analysis Identifies Gait Characteristics for Early Dementia Subtyping in Community Dwelling Older Adults

2019· article· en· W2928401409 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Marie De Cock, Erik Fransén, Stany Perkisas, Véronique Verhoeven, Olivier Beauchet, M. Vandewoude, Roy Remmen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaClinical Dementia RatingGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionNeurocognitivePsychologyRating scaleVascular dementiaPreferred walking speedMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineDevelopmental psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Gait patterns were associated with cognitive impairment stages. The current study examined the relation between dementia type and spatiotemporal gait characteristics under different walking conditions in pre and mild neurocognitive disorder stages. Methods: Community-dwelling older adults (age 50+) with memory complaints underwent, at baseline and during follow-up (every four months), a standard dementia assessment and a comprehensive spatiotemporal gait analysis (walking on an electronic walkway at usual pace (UP) with and without a counting-backwards (CW) or animal-reciting dual-task (AW), at fast (FP) and at slow (SP) pace). At baseline the participants were categorised according to the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale. At the end of the study, the dementia diagnosis was used to stratify the categories in three outcome groups: developed ‘No-dementia’, ‘AD+FTD’ (grouping Alzheimer’s or Fronto-temporal dementia) or ‘VascD+LBD’ dementia (grouping Vascular dementia or Lewy body dementia). The gait characteristics were compared per category in paired groups. Sub-analysing in the ≥70-years-old participants evaluated the age effect. Results: Five hundred and thirty-six participants, age 50-to-95-years old were followed for 31-to-41 months. In the CDR 0, no differences were seen between eventual dementia and no-dementia individuals. In the CDR 0.5, CW dual task cost (DTC) step width was larger in the imminent ‘AD+FTD’ and AW (normalised) gait speed was slower in the future ‘VascD+LBD’ group compared to the no-dementia participants. Slower UP (normalised) gait speed differed the future ‘VascD+LBD’ from the ‘AD+FTD’ individuals. In the CDR 1: Wider steps in UP, SP and CW differed the ‘VascD+LBD’ from the ‘AD+FTD’ group. In the ≥70-years old CDR 0 category, higher AW cycle time variability in the imminent ‘AD+FTD’ dementia group, wider UP step width and higher AW cycle time variability in the ‘VascD+LBD’ group differed them from the no-dementia group up to three years before dementia diagnosis. The distinctive gait characteristics between the no-dementia and the imminent dementia groups in CDR 0.5 and CDR 1 remained the same as in the overall group. Conclusion: Distinctive spatiotemporal gait characteristics were associated with specific dementia types up to three years before diagnosis. The association is influenced by the cognitive stage and age.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations40
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207