Does the stimulus provoking a stepping reaction correlate with step characteristics and clinical measures of balance and mobility post-stroke?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retraining stepping reactions in people post-stroke is vital. However, the relationship between the stimulus and resulting stepping performance in people post-stroke is unknown. We explored relationships between stepping stimulus and stepping reactions initiated by either paretic or non-paretic legs of people post-stroke and controls. Relationships were examined in the context of clinical measures of balance. METHODS: Centre of mass dynamics were measured during self-initiated destabilizing leaning stimuli that required stepping reactions by paretic and non-paretic legs of people post-stroke (n = 10) and controls (n = 10) to recover balance. Step characteristics of the first two steps of stepping reactions were measured. Correlations were calculated between clinical measures of balance and mobility and the centre of mass and step characteristics. FINDINGS: Steps were shorter and slower with decreased centre of mass fore-aft and downward displacement and velocity when initiated by paretic and non-paretic legs compared with controls. However, increase in centre of mass displacement and velocity in the fore-aft and downward direction tended to be associated with a greater increase in step length and speed when stepping reactions were initiated by the paretic and non-paretic legs compared with controls. Time to step initiation in response to onset of falling stimulus did not differ between groups. Strong positive correlations were found between clinical balance and mobility scores and centre of mass and step dynamics in fore-aft and vertical directions. INTERPRETATION: These results support objective measurement of centre of mass to quantify the stimulus influencing step dynamics and stepping performance during retraining interventions following stroke.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".