Reliability of novel centre of pressure measures of quiet standing balance in people with chronic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background People with stroke often have asymmetric motor impairment. Investigating asymmetries in, and dynamic properties of, centre of pressure movement during quiet standing can inform how well balance is controlled. Research question What are the test-retest reliabilities of novel measures of quiet standing balance control in people with chronic stroke? Methods Twenty people with chronic stroke (>6 months post-stroke), who were able to stand for at least 30 seconds without support, were recruited. Participants completed two 30-second quiet standing trials in a standardized position. Novel measures of quiet standing balance control included: symmetry of variability in centre of pressure displacement and velocity, between-limb synchronization, and sample entropy. Root mean square of centre of pressure displacement and velocity in the antero-posterior and medio-lateral directions were also calculated. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine test-retest reliability, and Bland-Altman plots were created to examine proportional biases. Results ICC 3,2 were between 0.79 and 0.95 for all variables, indicating ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ reliability (>0.75). However, ICC 3,1 for symmetry indices and between-limb synchronization were <0.75. Bland-Altman plots revealed possible proportional biases for root mean square of medio-lateral centre of pressure displacement and velocity and between-limb synchronization, with larger between-trial differences for participants with worse values. Significance These findings suggest that centre of pressure measures extracted from a single 30-second quiet standing trial may have sufficient reliability for some research studies in chronic stroke. However, for clinical applications, the average of at least two trials may be required.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".