Differences in the association between white matter hyperintensities and gait performance among older adults with and without cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Gait impairment implies subtle cognitive impairment (CI) and is associated with severity of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs). However, cognitive differences in such an association are not yet fully understood. This study examined the association between WMHs and gait performance among three cognitively different older groups. METHODS: Gait performance and WMHs were assessed in 150 community-dwelling older adults, comprising 53 with CI (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score <24), 63 with mild CI (MMSE score ≥24 and Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] score <25), and 34 who were cognitively normal or preserved (MMSE ≥24 and MoCA score ≥25). Gait velocity and variability were assessed on a 5-m electronic walkway. Furthermore, WMH volume was derived by automated segmentation using 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Adjusted multiple regression analyses showed that greater WMHs were associated with slower gait velocity and greater temporal (stride time) and spatial (stride and step lengths) variabilities among older adults with CI. In contrast, WMH was only associated with spatial variability in older adults with mild CI and in cognitively normal or preserved older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that gait variability measures are more sensitive to subtle underlying neurological pathologies including WMHs in older adults. The cognitive-dependent differences found in the association between WMHs and gait performance suggests that the level of cognitive function interferes with the association between WMH and gait performance. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; ••: ••-••.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".