Timed Up and Go Test With a Cognitive Task: Correlations With Neuropsychological Measures in People With Parkinson’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a simple and widely used clinical test for the assessment of lower extremity function, balance, mobility, and fall risk in various populations. The TUG has been found as a valid and reliable measure in people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Besides, the addition of a cognitive task to the TUG (TUG-cognitive) enhances predictive validity related to fall risk in people with PD. However, further investigation is needed about the correlations of the TUG-cognitive test with neuropsychological measures in people with PD. Methods Thirty-three people with PD [modified Hoehn and Yahr scale, median (min-max)=2.5 (1.0-3.0)] participated in this cross-sectional study. The TUG was administered in the traditional way and with a cognitive task (counting backward by three from any number between 20 and 100). Neuropsychological measures included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making Test (TMT), and the Simple Reaction Time (SRT) test for stepping. The self-reported number of falls in the last six months was also recorded. Results The TUG-cognitive [13.1 (SD=8.5) seconds] was significantly longer than the TUG-traditional [12.2 (SD=8.1) seconds] (p<0.01). The TUG-cognitive significantly correlated with the MoCA [(rho=-0.712), TMT part A (TMT-A; rho=0.722), TMT part B (TMT-B; rho=0.694), SRT (rho=0.794), and number of falls (rho=0.960)] (p<0.01). The TUG-traditional also significantly correlated with the MoCA (rho=-0.682), TMT-A (rho=0.684), TMT-B (rho=0.746), SRT (rho=0.755), and number of falls (rho=0.702) (p<0.01). Conclusion Both the TUG-cognitive and TUG-traditional strongly correlated with neuropsychological measures; while the correlations were slightly stronger for the TUG-cognitive, the difference was not significant. The TUG-cognitive can be used in the clinical practice as a simple and more informative alternative to the TUG-traditional in people with PD.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it