Assessment of the Wii Basic Balance Test in measuring postural deficits post-concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: To evaluate the Wii Basic Balance Test (WBBT), as a tool for detecting postural instability in athletes with concussions.  Methods: Seventy-nine healthy physically active controls (NORM) (mean age 21.23 ± 1.78), and fifty-six athletes with concussions (CONC) (mean age 19.39 ± 2.145) participated in this study. All participants performed the Wii Basic Balance Test, which requires the participants to shift weight mediolaterally to maintain a red bar within a blue area denoted on the screen for three seconds during set levels of difficulty. CONC were included in the study within 24-48 hours of the initial concussion injury. Seven one-way ANOVAs assessed differences for each (1) Mean total number of WBBT Levels completed (TL), (2) Mean total seconds to complete all WBBT Level (TT), (3) Time to complete Level 1 (L1), (4) Time to complete Level 2 (L2), (5) Time to complete Level 3 (L3), (6) Time to complete Level 4 (L4), (7) Time to complete Level 5 (L5). Results: CONC completed significantly fewer Levels of the WBBT (p=0.032) when compared to NORM. Athletes with Concussions took a significantly longer time to complete L1 (p=0.002) when compared to CONC. Post-hoc Chi-Square analysis determined a significantly greater (p=0.015) proportion (39%) of CONC successfully completed WBBT L5 when compared to the proportion (19%) of CONC. Follow up ROC curves revealed an Sn = 0.392 and an Sp = 0.821 for TL with a cutoff value of 4 levels, Sn=0.875 and an Sp = 0.253 for L1 with a cutoff value of 4.4 seconds, and Sn = 0.804 and an Sp = 0.392 for those who successfully completed the WBBT L5.  Conclusions: WBBT could be a low cost object method of assessing postural instability within 24-48 hours post-concussion.  Relevance for patients: This data could provide health providers with an alternative method to measure the presence of postural instability post-concussion 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".