Complex Gait Is Related to Cognitive Functioning in Older People: A Cross-Sectional Study Providing an Innovative Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Many studies have demonstrated an inverse relationship between gait performance and cognitive impairment. The main purposes of this study were: (1) to design and validate a complex gait test (CGT) in older people, (2) to analyze the effects of age and sex on CGT, and (3) to analyze the association between CGT performance and physical functioning and cognitive measures. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 279 older people (60–97 years) were analyzed in 2019. Fitness tests, gait performance, and several cognitive measures such as<i></i>the Trail-Walking Test and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were used. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The CGT reported adequate reliability and validity parameters. In the test-retest analysis, the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.868 (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). There was a significant correlation between the CGT and Trail-Walking Test (<i>r</i> = 0.592; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). The linear regression analysis showed that the CGT was associated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.357; <i>p =</i>0.001). The binary logistic regression analysis revealed that a high CGT score was a risk factor for mild cognitive impairment (odds ratio 1.201, 95% CI 1.081–1.334; <i>p</i> = 0.001). The ROC curve of the mild cognitive impairment was predicted by the CGT performance (area under the curve = 0.768, 95% CI 0.647–0.889; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001), reaching the cut-off point at 20.25 s. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The CGT showed good reliability and validity and may serve as a potential biomarker in mild cognitive impairment prediction in older adults aged 60–97 years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".