MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175179831 · doi:10.1080/10749357.2021.1943803

Postural control during quiet standing and voluntary stepping response tasks in individuals post-stroke: a case-control study

2021· article· en· W3175179831 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabriel Moisan, Pornprom Chayasit, Rumpa Boonsinsukh, Christopher Nester, Kristen Hollands

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKing Khalid University
KeywordsCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationForce platformRehabilitationDisplacement (psychology)Ground reaction forceStroke (engine)Balance (ability)QUIETExcursionMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyKinematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postural control impairments following a stroke have an impact on mobility, reduce independence, and increase the risk of falls. Assessing these impairments during tasks representative of real-life situations, such as quiet standing (QS) and voluntary stepping response (VSR), will enhance our understanding of how the postural control system is impaired in individuals post-stroke (IPS). It will also inform the development of a more targeted and effective rehabilitation to prevent falls in IPS. OBJECTIVES: Identify the postural control impairments encountered by IPS during QS and VSR. METHODS: Twenty IPS and 16 healthy controls were recruited to perform QS and VSR tasks, while ground reaction forces and whole-body motion were measured. Displacement and speed variation of the COM, center of pressure (COP) displacement and spatiotemporal data were calculated and compared between groups. RESULTS: During QS, IPS exhibited greater maximal COP displacement in mediolateral direction, COM displacement in vertical direction and COM speed excursions compared to controls. During VSR, IPS exhibited smaller step length, braking force, posterior foot placement in relation to the pelvis and COM anteroposterior excursion compared to controls. IPS presented less static and dynamic postural stability compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Greater postural sway during QS, smaller anteroposterior COM displacement before losing balance and altered voluntary recovering steps during VSR could place IPS at more risk of falling when they face a postural challenge in the community. These novel results will improve the current knowledge base and should be considered in IPS rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Stroke RehabilitationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207