Association Between the Loss of Gait Harmony and Cognitive Impairment: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional limitations and disabilities have been associated with a decrease in cognitive function due to increasing age. Gait performance and cognitive function have been associated with gait variability in executive function, the phase domain in memory, and gait abnormalities in cognitive decline. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to investigate whether gait harmony was associated with cognitive function in the older adult population. Moreover, we aimed to investigate whether gait harmony was associated with cognitive function and explore each cognitive function in a specific harmonic state. METHODS: The study population included 510 adults aged ≥60 years who visited the Department of Neurology at the Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Gait data were collected using a 3D motion capture device with a wireless inertial measurement unit system. For cognitive function assessments, we used the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-Core test, which evaluates the level of cognitive function or impairment in 5 cognitive domains. RESULTS: In general, the association between the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-Core tests and the stance-to-swing ratio in the >1.63 ratio group yielded lower β coefficients than those in the 1.50-1.63 ratio group. After adjustment for confounders, the odds ratio (OR) for the Digit Symbol Coding test (adjusted OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.88) and the Korean version of the Color Word Stroop Test: 60 seconds (adjusted OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.89) for frontal and executive function were significantly lower for the >1.63 ratio group than the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the gait phase ratio is a valuable indicator of walking deficits and may also be associated with cognitive impairment in older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".