Impaired trunk control and its relationship with balance, functional mobility, and disease severity in patients with cervical dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impaired trunk control is common in neurological disorders; however, trunk control has not been examined in patients with cervical dystonia (CD). Therefore, the primary aim was to compare trunk control between patients with CD and healthy people. The secondary aim was to investigate the relationship between trunk control and balance, functional mobility, and disease severity in patients with CD. METHODS: ]This cross-sectional study included 32 patients with CD and 32 healthy people. Trunk control was compared using the trunk impairment scale (TIS) that consists of three subscales: static sitting balance, dynamic sitting balance, and trunk coordination between two groups. Balance was assessed using Berg Balance Scale, four square step test, and one-leg stance test. The Timed Up and Go Test was measured to determine functional mobility. Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale was used to evaluate disease severity.]></AbstractText> <AbstractText Label="RESULTS"><![CDATA[ Patients with CD demonstrated worse performance on the TIS-total with TIS-dynamic sitting subscale and TIS-trunk coordination subscale (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001), except for TIS-static sitting subscale (p = 0.078) compared to healthy people. TIS-total scores had moderate to strong correlations with balance, functional mobility, and disease severity (range r between 0.786 and 0.536, p < 0.05 for all). There was no correlation between TIS-total scores and disease severity (p = 0.102). DISCUSSION: Patients with CD had impaired trunk control, especially in dynamic sitting balance and trunk coordination. Impaired trunk control was also associated with balance and functional mobility but not disease severity. These findings suggest that trunk control deficits should receive attention in the assessment and treatment of patients with CD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".