The Differential Effect of First‐Time Single‐Point Cane Use between Healthy Young and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking aids are often introduced to older adults to enable independent mobility. Single-point canes are the most common device used. Benefits are tempered by research suggesting that walking aids increase fall risk. A better understanding of the effect of walking aid use on gait performance is required. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in the effect of initial single-point cane use on gait between younger (YAs) and older adults (OAs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Community-dwelling. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six YAs (mean age ± standard deviation [SD]: 23.7 ± 2.8 years) and 25 OAs (mean age ± SD: 70.8 ± 14.1 years) participated. Inclusion criteria were 18 to 35 years of age for YAs or ≥50 years for OAs, be able to ambulate unassisted, and without any condition affecting mobility. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Gait velocity and stride time variability under different walking path configurations (straight path, Groningen Meander Walking Test, Figure-of-8 Walk Test) and conditions (unassisted walking, walking with a single-point cane, and walking with a single-point cane while completing a cognitive task) were recorded in a laboratory. The arithmetic task of subtracting 1s from 100 was used as the secondary cognitive task. Data analysis included separate three-way mixed analyses of variance (ANOVAs; path/condition/group). RESULTS: = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Using a single-point cane decreased velocity and increased stride time variability in both YAs and OAs. However, the cognitive load and effect on gait of initial cane use was not different between age groups. Standardized guidelines aimed at facilitating a client's transition toward the safe use of a walking aid are needed. Future research should evaluate if training can mitigate some of the adverse changes to gait stability observed with initial walking aid use.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".