MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323533304 · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-03811-7

Comparison of spatio-temporal gait parameters between the GAITRite® platinum plus classic and the GAITRite® CIRFACE among older adults: a retrospective observational study

2023· article· en· W4323533304 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Sacco, Grégory Ben-Sadoun, Jennifer Gautier, Romain Simon, Maude Goupil, Pauline Laureau, Jade Terrien, Cédric Annweiler

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineGaitPearson product-moment correlation coefficientAmbulatoryObservational studyGold standard (test)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyStatisticsMathematicsSurgeryInternal medicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The GAITRite® system is one of the gold standards for gait electronic analysis, especially for older adults. Previous GAITRite® systems were composed of an electronic roll-up walkway. Recently, a new GAITRite® electronic walkway, named CIRFACE, was commercialized. It is composed of a changeable association of stiff plates, unlike previous models. Are the gait parameters measured similar between these two walkways among older adults and according to the cognitive status, the history of falls, and the use of walking aids? Methods In this retrospective observational study, 95 older ambulatory participants (mean, 82.6 ± 5.8 years) were included. Ten spatio-temporal gait parameters were measured simultaneously with the two GAITRite® systems in older adults while walking at comfortable self-selected pace. The GAITRite® Platinum Plus Classic (26’) was superimposed on the GAITRite® CIRFACE (VI). Comparisons between the parameters of the two walkways were performed using Bravais-Pearson correlation, between-method differences (corresponding to bias), percentage errors and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC 2,1 ). Subgroup analyses were performed according to the cognitive status, the history of falls in the last 12 months and the use of walking aids. Results The whole walk parameters recorded by the two walkways were extremely correlated with a Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.968 to 0.999, P < .001 , indicating a very high correlation. According to the ICC 2,1 calculated for absolute agreement, all gait parameters had excellent reliability (ranging from 0.938 to 0.999). Mean bias for 9 parameters out of 10 were ranged from − 0.27 to 0.54, with clinically acceptable percentage errors (1.2–10.1%). Step length showed a substantially higher bias (1.4 ± 1.2 cm), nevertheless the percentage errors remained clinically acceptable (5%). Conclusion When walking at comfortable self-selected pace, the standard spatio-temporal walk parameters provided by both the GAITRite® PPC and the GAITRite® CIRFACE seem similar and very highly correlated in older adults with various cognitive or motor status. The data of studies using these systems can be compared and mixed with a very low risk of bias in a meta-analytic process. Also, the geriatric care units can choose the most ergonomic system according to their infrastructure without affecting their gait data. Trial registration NCT04557592 (21/09/2020).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207