Time of day effect on balance performance, functional capacities and risk of fall in women with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study explored the time of day effect of balance performance, functional capacities and risk of fall in three different times in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the association between these variations and those of RA symptoms.Methods: A “discontinual” protocol, composed of three test sessions, carried out at 6 am, 2 pm and 10 pm was set up, in order to investigate the time of day effect of balance performance, functional capacities, risk of fall, stiffness, range of motion, swollen and painful joints in women with RA.Results: Time Up and Go Test (TUGT), Functional Reach Test (FRT) and tinetti test scores were significantly higher (p < .01) at 6 am and at 10 pm compared to 2 pm. Stiffness, range of motion, swollen and painful joints values were significantly higher (p < .01) at 6 am and at 10 pm compared to 2 pm. A significant difference was observed on the stiffness, range of motion and swollen joints values between 6 am and 10 pm that were higher at 6 am (p < .05).Using Pearson’s coefficient, correlations were found between RA symptom values; and TUGT, FRT and Tinetti test scores.Conclusion: Results showed a time of day effect of balance performance, functional capacities and risk of falls in women with RA. This variation indicates an alteration of performance at 6 am and 10 pm. Fluctuations of stiffness, limited range of motion, swollen and painful joints noted are concomitant to those of balance performance, functional capacities, and risk of fall.Abbreviations: RA: rheumatoid arthritis; H&O questionnaire: Horne and Ostberg questionnaire; PSQI: Pittsburgh sleep quality index; HAQ: health assessment questionnaire; SF-36: the short form-36; WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; TUGT: Time Up and Go Test; FRT: Functional Reach Test
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".