Gait Kinematic and Kinetic Characteristics of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Subjective Cognitive Decline: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have slower gait speed and poor gait performance under dual-task conditions. However, gait kinematic and kinetic characteristics in older adults with MCI or subjective cognitive decline (SCD) remain unknown. This study was designed to explore the difference in gait kinematics and kinetics during level walking among older people with MCI, SCD, and normal cognition (NC). Methods This cross-sectional study recruited 181 participants from July to December 2019; only 82 met the inclusion criteria and consented to participate and only 79 completed gait analysis. Kinematic and kinetic data were obtained using three-dimensional motion capture system during level walking, and joint movements of the lower limbs in the sagittal plane were analyzed by Visual 3D software. Differences in gait kinematics and kinetics among the groups were analyzed using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, the significance level was p < 0.002 for MANCOVA and p < 0.0008 for post-hoc analysis. Results Twenty-two participants were MCI [mean ± standard deviation (SD) age, 71.23 ± 6.65 years], 33 were SCD (age, 72.73 ± 5.25 years), and 24 were NC (age, 71.96 ± 5.30 years). MANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), gait speed, years of education, diabetes mellitus, and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) revealed a significant multivariate effect of group in knee peak extension angle ( F = 8.77, p < 0.0001) and knee heel strike angle ( F = 8.07, p = 0.001) on the right side. Post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction showed a significant increase of 5.91° in knee peak extension angle ( p < 0.0001) and a noticeable decrease of 6.21°in knee heel strike angle ( p = 0.001) in MCI compared with NC on the right side. However, no significant intergroup difference was found in gait kinetics, including dorsiflexion, plantar flexion, knee flexion, knee extension, hip flexion, and hip extension( p > 0.002). Conclusion An increase of right knee peak extension angle and a decrease of right knee heel strike angle during level walking were found among older adults with MCI compared to those with NC.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".