Vibration Thresholds Using Conventional Audiometry are Clinically Useful Indicators of Postural Instability in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls are a major health concern with potentially dramatic consequences for people over 65 years of age. One crucial determinant in the risk of falls in older adults is postural control, a complex process that requires the contribution of different sensory modalities, namely visual, vestibular, auditory, and somatosensory. While there are well-established methods to screen for age-related vision, hearing, tactile, and vestibular impairments, there are very few widely available methods to screen for somatosensory function, but studies indicate that ankle audiometry (vibration thresholds) using a common B-71 bone vibrator can serve that purpose. To date, unfortunately, this technique has received little attention as a tool to measure postural instability in older adults. PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to examine postural control in older adults with and without degradation of the somatosensory functions, as determined with ankle audiometry. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was standard group comparison. STUDY SAMPLE: = 18]). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard audiometry, video head impulse test, vibration thresholds (big toe, ankle, and tibia), and static postural control task using a force platform were performed. RESULTS: Greater postural instability in participants with higher (worse) vibration thresholds as compared with participants with lower (better) vibration thresholds was observed even though both groups were comparable on hearing threshold and vestibular function. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that performing a simple vibration threshold evaluation, using a clinically available B-71 with a cut-off value of 42 dB hearing loss, could be an effective, fast, and easy-to-use procedure for detecting people at risk of falls.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".