Brain Structural Correlates of Obstacle Negotiation in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Results from the Gait and Brain Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) affects obstacle negotiation capabilities, potentially increasing the risk of falls in older adults. However, it is unclear whether smaller brain volumes typically observed in older individuals with MCI are related to the observed hazardous obstacle negotiation in this population. METHODS: A total of 93 participants (71.9 ± 5.36 years of age; MCI = 53/control = 40) from the Gait and Brain Study were analyzed. Gray matter (GM) volumes from the frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes were entered in the analysis. Gait performance was recorded using a 6-m electronic walkway during two cognitive load conditions while approaching and stepping over an obstacle: (1) single-task and (2) while counting backwards by 1s from 100 (dual-task). Anticipatory adjustments in gait performance to cross an "ad hoc" obstacle were electronically measured during pre-crossing phases: early (3 steps before the late phase) and late (3 steps before obstacle). Association between the percentage of change in average gait speed and step length from early to late (i.e., anticipatory adjustments) and GM volumes was investigated using multivariate models adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Anticipatory adjustments in gait speed (Wilks' lambda: 0.35; Eta2: 0.64; p = 0.01) and step length (Wilks' lambda: 0.33; Eta2: 0.66; p = 0.01) during dual-task conditions were globally associated with GM volumes in MCI. Individuals with MCI with smaller GM volumes in the left inferior frontal gyrus, left hippocampus, right hippocampus, and right entorhinal cortex made significantly fewer anticipatory gait adjustments prior to crossing the obstacle. CONCLUSION: Frontotemporal atrophy may affect obstacle negotiation capabilities potentially increasing the risk of falls in MCI.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".