The Impact of Parkinson’s Disease on Postural Control in Older People and How Sex can Mediate These Results: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's disease is most prevalent among elderly people, 65 years and over, and leads to an alteration in motor control associated with postural instability. Current evidence shows that postural control decreases with the aging process. In addition, postural control is more altered in healthy aged men than in women. Until today, few studies have evaluated the combined impact of Parkinson's disease and sex on postural control. This review has allowed to evaluate the impact of Parkinson's disease and sex on postural control measurements in elderly people. METHODOLOGY: = 179). Articles were excluded if not written in French or English or not presenting original content. RESULTS: Ten (10) studies out of 179 that fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria were reported in the final analysis, which cumulates a total of 944 individuals with Parkinson's (410 women). In general, results show greater postural instability among people with Parkinson's compared to healthy subjects, and this according to different objective measurements using stabilographic parameters from force platforms. Only two studies out of ten evaluated postural control while briefly considering distinctions between sex, but without showing a significant difference between men and women with Parkinson's. Parkinson's severity, length of time of Parkinson's disease and cognitive state of the person are the three variables with a negative impact on postural control. CONCLUSION: Older people with Parkinson's disease have greater postural instability. Sex does not seem to influence the postural control of elderly people with Parkinson's, although more studies are necessary.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".