Fear of Falling Does Not Influence Dual-Task Gait Costs in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive deficits and fear of falling (FOF) can both influence gait patterns in Parkinson’s disease (PD). While cognitive deficits contribute to gait changes under dual-task (DT) conditions, it is unclear if FOF also influences changes to gait while performing a cognitive task. Here, we aimed to explore the association between FOF and DT costs in PD, we additionally describe associations between FOF, cognition, and gait parameters under single-task and DT. In 40 PD patients, motor symptoms (MDS-revised version of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, Hoehn and Yahr), FOF (Falls Efficacy Scale International), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were assessed. Spatiotemporal gait parameters were recorded with a validated mobile gait analysis system with inertial measurement units at each foot while patients walked in a 50 m hallway at their preferred speed under single-task and DT conditions. Under single-task conditions, stride length (β = 0.798) and spatial variability (β = 0.202) were associated with FOF (adjusted R2 = 0.19, p < 0.001) while the MoCA was only weakly associated with temporal variability (adjusted R2 = 0.05, p < 0.001). Under DT conditions, speed, stride length, and cadence decreased, while spatial variability, temporal variability, and stride duration increased with the largest effect size for speed. DT costs of stride length (β = 0.42) and age (β = 0.58) explained 18% of the MoCA variance. However, FOF was not associated with the DT costs of gait parameters. Gait difficulties in PD may exacerbate when cognitive tasks are added during walking. However, FOF does not appear to have a relevant effect on dual-task costs of gait.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".