Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the gait differences among patients with Alzheimer's disease(AD) and mild cognitive impairment(AD-MCI) and the person with normal cognitive function, and analyze the reasons for the abnormal gait. Methods Eighty patients were included and divided into 3 groups according to the cognitive status: noncognitive impairment(NCI group, n=30), patients with mild cognitive impairment(AD-MCI group, n=29), Alzheimer's disease(AD group, n=21). The mini-mental state examination(MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA), Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination(ACE-R), the connection test(TMT-A), Digit Span Test(DST), activities of daily living questionnaire(ADL) and associated gait and balance scale(5 times sit to stand test(FTSTT), 3 m walking test (TUG), Berg balance scale) were used to evaluate all research objects in each group. Results There were significant differences in NCI group compared with AD-MCI group and AD group in terms of FTSTT, TUG, Berg balance Scale and leg speed((9.59±2.39) s vs.(13.71±4.65) s vs.(14.15±4.20) s, (7.70±1.58) s vs.(11.13±3.02) s vs.(11.35±4.43) s, (54.20±1.56) points vs.(48.17±4.93) points vs.(48.10±5.46) points, (82.12±22.79) cm/s vs.(57.49±14.89) cm/s vs.(57.70±14.68) cm/s; P<0.05). There were significant differences in NCI group compared with AD-MCI group and AD group in terms of MMSE, MoCA, ACE-R, TMT-A, DST((28.67±1.27) points vs.(26.76±2.59) points vs.(21.86±5.29) points, (26.03±2.58) points vs.(22.39±5.05) points vs.(16.90±5.05) points, (85.80±5.90) points vs.(78.03±7.58) points vs.(60.95±13.99) points, (12.66±5.36) s vs.(18.99±11.46) s vs.(30.49±26.98)s, (18.60±4.64) points vs.(15.94±4.76) points vs.(12.86±5.23) points; P<0.05). Conclusion Gait disorder might be an early sign for cognitive impairment. Key words: Alzheimer's disease; Cognitive dysfunction; Gait disturbance
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".