Association between balance confidence and basic walking abilities in people with unilateral transtibial lower-limb amputations: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Falls are common for people with lower-limb amputations (PLLA). Low balance confidence is also prevalent, is worse in PLLA not reporting walking automaticity, and is known to negatively affect prosthesis use, social engagement, and quality of life. Moreover, walking with a prosthesis requires continuous attention. Low balance confidence may act as a distractor imposing an additional cognitive load on the already cognitively demanding task of walking with a prosthesis. METHODS: Adults with unilateral, transtibial amputations were recruited. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale quantified balance confidence. The L Test assessed basic walking abilities under single-task (ST) (usual) and dual-task (DT) (walking while counting backwards) conditions. The relative change in gait and secondary task performance between conditions (ie, DT cost) was calculated. Separate multivariable linear regressions examined the association of balance confidence on the L Test. RESULTS: Forty-four PLLA (56.6 ± 12.6 years) participated. An independent association of the ABC to ST ( P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.56) and DT ( P = 0.008, R 2 = 0.43) L Test performance was observed. A 1% ABC increase was related with a 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.14) and 0.23 (95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.06) second reduction with the ST and DT L Test, respectively. No association to DT cost was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Balance confidence influences basic walking abilities yet does not modulate the added cognitive load associated with DT. Interventions that address balance confidence may be beneficial throughout rehabilitation. This research is novel and offers the possibility for alternative avenues for focus in rehabilitation and falls prevention in a population at high risk for falls.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".