Postural stability during standing and its association with physical and cognitive functions in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is characterised by poor physical function. A possible factor may be aberrant changes to balance and postural stability (i.e. ability to maintain centre of pressure (COP)). Previous research has exclusively focused on patients undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT). The current study investigated postural stability in a group of CKD patients not requiring RRT. 30 CKD patients (aged 57.0 ± 17.8 years, 47% female, mean eGFR 42.9 ± 27.2 ml/kg/1.73 m2) underwent a series of physical function assessments including the sit-to-stand-5 and -60, incremental shuttle walk test, gait speed, and short physical performance battery. Postural stability (defined as total COP ellipse (mm2) displacement) was measured using the Fysiometer board. Control reference data were provided by the manufacture. Cognitive function was assessed using the ‘Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic’ (MOCA-B)’. CKD patients had poorer postural stability during quiet standing than reference values across all age categories (≤ 39 years, 24.9 ± 11.3 vs. 10.4 ± 1.8 mm2; 40–59 years, 34.3 ± 19.0 vs. 17.7 ± 6.2 mm2; ≥ 60 years, 39.7 ± 21.2 vs. 16.8 ± 2.9 mm2, all comparisons P < 0.001). Reductions in postural stability were associated with both physical and cognitive functioning. In females only, postural stability worsened with declining renal function (r = − 0.790, P < 0.01). To our knowledge, this is the first and largest experimental report concerning measurement of postural stability of CKD patients not requiring RRT. Our findings suggest that postural stability is associated with worse physical and cognitive functioning in this patient group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".