Validity and Reliability of Smartphone App for Evaluating Postural Adjustments during Step Initiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs) requires high-cost and complex handling systems, only available at research laboratories. New alternative methods are being developed in this field, on the other hand, to solve this issue and allow applicability in clinic, sport and hospital environments. The objective of this study was to validate an app for mobile devices to measure the APAs during gait initiation by comparing the signals obtained from cell phones using the Momentum app with measurements made by a kinematic system. The center-of-mass accelerations of a total of 20 healthy subjects were measured by the above app, which read the inertial sensors of the smartphones, and by kinematics, with a reflective marker positioned on their lumbar spine. The subjects took a step forward after hearing a command from an experimenter. The variables of the anticipatory phase, prior to the heel-off and the step phase, were measured. In the anticipatory phase, the linear correlation of all variables measured by the two measurement techniques was significant and indicated a high correlation between the devices (APAonset: r = 0.95, p < 0.0001; APAamp: r = 0.71, p = 0.003, and PEAKtime: r = 0.95, p < 0.0001). The linear correlation between the two measurement techniques for the step phase variables measured by ques was also significant (STEPinterval: r = 0.56, p = 0.008; STEPpeak1: r = 0.79, p < 0.0001; and STEPpeak2: r = 0.64, p < 0.0001). The Bland−Altman graphs indicated agreement between instruments with similar behavior as well as subjects within confidence limits and low dispersion. Thus, using the Momentum cell phone application is valid for the assessment of APAs during gait initiation compared to the gold standard instrument (kinematics), proving to be a useful, less complex, and less costly alternative for the assessment of healthy individuals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".