Clinical utility of gait stability measures: Selection and preliminary evaluation of the margin of stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: gait-related falls account for most falls in the elderly. The identification of individuals at risk of falling due to unstable gait requires clinically feasible measures that can detect impairments in gait. Our obiective was to : (1) assess the feasibility for clinical implementation of existing gait stability measures and selected measures to detect gait impairments. Methods: Nine measures were assessed for clinical feasibility, with only the margin of stability(MOS) being selected for evaluation. Ground reactions and motion of the lower body were recorded in fifteen non-disabled and three disabled participants during treadmil walking. Media-lateral MOS was calculated and compared between the non-disabled and disabled participants to evaluate its ability to detect gait impairments. Results: MOS values at heel strike(HS) and at the point between HS and contralateral toe-off with minimum MOS deviated between participants with lower limb impaiments and non-disabled participants. Conclusion: MOS at HS demonstrated the greatest potential to assess fall risk. Additional work is required before MOS can be recommanded for clinical use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".