Neural Plasticity in Spinal and Corticospinal Pathways Induced by Balance Training in Neurologically Intact Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balance training, defined here as training of postural equilibrium, improves postural control and reduces the rate of falls especially in older adults. This systematic review aimed to determine the neuroplasticity induced by such training in younger (18-30 years old) and older adults (≥65 years old). We focused on spinal and corticospinal pathways, as studied with electrophysiology, in people without neurological or other systemic disorders. We were specifically interested in the change in the excitability of these pathways before and after training. Searches were conducted in four databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase. A total of 1,172 abstracts were screened, and 14 articles were included. Quality of the studies was evaluated with the Downs and Black checklist. Twelve of the studies measured spinal reflexes, with ten measuring the soleus H-reflex. The H-reflex amplitude was consistently reduced in younger adults after balance training, while mixed results were found in older adults, with many showing an increase in the H-reflex after training. The differences in results between studies of younger vs. older adults may be related to the differences in their H-reflexes at baseline, with older adults showing much smaller H-reflexes than younger adults. Five studies measured corticospinal and intracortical excitability using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Younger adults showed reduced corticospinal excitability and enhanced intracortical inhibition after balance training. Two studies on older adults reported mixed results after training. No conclusions could be drawn for corticospinal and intracortical plasticity given the small number of studies. Overall, balance training induced measurable change in spinal excitability, with different changes seen in younger compared to 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".