Balance control deficits in individuals with a transtibial amputation with and without visual input
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many individuals with a transtibial amputation (TTA) exhibit balance deficits after limb loss. However, limited evidence exists on balance deficits of individuals with a TTA using hip, knee, and ankle kinematics and center of mass outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To identify balance control deficits in individuals with a TTA and determine to what extent they are accentuated without visual inputs. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Ten individuals with TTA and 10 healthy controls undertook a biomechanical assessment during a 30-s quiet standing task with eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC). The mean trunk, hip, knee, and ankle angles and center of pressure (COP) and center of mass excursions were calculated. RESULTS: More ankle dorsiflexion was observed for amputated limbs compared with intact lower limbs (mean difference: 5.8-degree, P = 0.031). Less anteroposterior (mean difference: 26.5 mm, P < 0.001) and mediolateral (ML) (mean difference: 4.2 mm, P = 0.042) COP excursions were found for amputated limbs compared with intact lower limbs and for control limbs compared with intact limbs (mean difference: 18.8 mm, P = 0.019). Greater ML COP excursion was found during EC than during EO condition (mean difference: 1.1 mm, P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a TTA presented a greater reliance on the intact lower limb, as highlighted by the greater ankle plantarflexion and anteroposterior and ML COP excursions for intact limbs compared with amputated limbs during quiet standing tasks. During EC condition, both groups exhibited greater ML COP excursions compared with EO condition, suggesting less postural stability. These differences may place them at greater risk of falling.
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".