Clinical Static Balance Assessment: A Narrative Review of Traditional and IMU-Based Posturography in Older Adults and Individuals with Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining a stable upright posture is essential for performing activities of daily living, and impaired standing balance may impact an individual's quality of life. Therefore, accurate and sensitive methods for assessing static balance are crucial for identifying balance impairments, understanding the underlying mechanisms of the balance deficiencies, and developing targeted interventions to improve standing balance and prevent falls. This review paper first explores the methods to quantify standing balance. Then, it reviews traditional posturography and recent advancements in using wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) to assess static balance in two populations: older adults and those with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). The inclusion of these two groups is supported by their large representation among individuals with balance impairments. Also, each group exhibits distinct aspects in balance assessment due to diverse underlying causes associated with aging and neurological impairment. Given the high vulnerability of both demographics to balance impairments and falls, the significance of targeted interventions to improve standing balance and mitigate fall risk becomes apparent. Overall, this review highlights the importance of static balance assessment and the potential of emerging methods and technologies to improve our understanding of postural control in different populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".