The unintentional body rotation with the Fukuda stepping test is not proportional to the number of steps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study was to compare the magnitude and variability of the unintended body rotation at the 20th and 50th step while performing the 50-step Fukuda stepping test (FST50) without and with modifications, i.e. restricted linear displacements and 30° head flexion. Methods Kinematic data previously collected from 14 and 20 healthy young adults were analyzed. Body rotation was extracted at the 20th step and the 50th step of the FST50 and the ratio between the two was calculated. The impact of test modifications on rotation was assessed with a two-way ANOVA for repeated measure and the variability of rotation was described with the coefficient of variation (CV). Results The ratio of rotation was 0.27 for the FST50 and 0.29 for the modified FST50. The CVs of rotation of were 57.9% and 65.0% at the 20th step and 79.7% and 81.8% at the 50th step for the FST50 and modified FST50, respectively. Modifications to the FST50 did not change the magnitude of rotation ( p > .05). Conclusion The control of body rotation seems to progressively deteriorates during the FST50. From our results, it appears that a 20-step FST might not be a simple, proportional shortened version of the FST50.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".