Standing, Transition, and Walking Ability in Older Adults: The Case for Independently Evaluating Different Domains of Mobility Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Independent mobility is a complex behavior that relies on the ability to walk, maintain stability, and transition between postures. However, guidelines for assessment that details what elements of mobility to evaluate and how they should be measured remain unclear. METHODS: Performance on tests of standing, sit-to-stand, and walking were evaluated in a cohort of 135 complex, comorbid, and older adults (mean age 87 ± 5.5 years). Correlational analysis was conducted to examine the degree of association for measures within and between mobility domains on a subset of participants (n = 83) able to complete all tasks unaided. Participants were also grouped by the presence of risk markers for frailty (gait speed and grip strength) to determine if the level of overall impairment impacted performance scores and if among those with risk markers, the degree of association was greater. RESULTS: Within-domain relationships for sit-to-stand and walking were modest (rho = 0.01-0.60). Associations either did not exist or relationships were weak for measures reflecting different domains (rho = -0.35 to 0.25, p > 0.05). As expected, gait speed differed between those with and without frailty risk markers (p < 0.001); however, balance and sit-to-stand measures did not (p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to independently evaluate different mobility domains within an individual as a standard assessment approach. Modest within-domain relationships emphasize the need to account for multiple, unique control challenges within more complex domains. These findings have important implications for standardized mobility assessment and targeted rehabilitation strategies for older adults.
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 | 0.041 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".