Dual-Task Effect on Gait in Healthy Adolescents: Association between Health-Related Indicators and DT Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how dual-task (DT) effect on gait differs among adolescents with different fitness and health profiles. The gait performances of 365 adolescents aged 13-14 years were assessed at single and DT walking. The proportional changes in gait parameters from single to dual were regressed against gender, body mass index (BMIz), three components of MABC-2 (balance, aiming &catching and manual dexterity), group (high vs low motor competence), body strength, physical fitness level using multiple regression analyses; and gender and four items of balance subtest of MABC-2 in the secondary analysis. The analyses showed that being female was associated with greater reduction in gait speed and stride length and an increase in double support time and step time; and having lower score in balance was related to greater reduction in gait speed, and cadence, and an increase in step time. Only zig-zag hopping item of the balance subtest was associated with DT effect on gait speed and stride length. No significant relationships were found between DT effect on gait and the rest of the predictors. Females and adolescents with lower level of balance function may be at higher risk of having DT deficit during walking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".