Impact of frailty and sex-related differences on postural control and gait in older adults with Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's Disease (PD), a neurodegenerative condition, affects normal aging and leads to reduced motor abilities. In addition, frailty syndrome can increase vulnerability and risks of undesirable effects such as disease progression, falls, disability, and premature death among individuals with PD. AIMS: To assess the impact of frailty on balance and gait parameters in older with PD and to determine if sex mediates these measures. METHODS: Twenty-seven (27) participants (n = 18 men; n = 10 frail) performed 4 balance tasks on a force platform (eyes opened/closed in bipodal/semi-tandem position) while linear center of pressure (COP) parameters were calculated. Participants also performed two different speed walks on a gait analysis system to assess gait parameters. RESULTS: Significant differences between the frail and non-frail group were observed on postural control (mainly for area of COP p = 0.013/d = 0.47/70 %; sway velocity p = 0.048/d = 0.41/23 %) where frail reported poor balance. No significant sex differences were reported for postural control. Gait analysis was comparable between frail and non-frail, while significant differences between men and women were observed for step length (p = 0.002, d = 0.71), step width (p = 0.001, d = 0.75) and base of support (p = 0.012, d = 0.64) variables. CONCLUSION: Frail Parkinson's individuals present poorer postural control than non-frail individuals, but comparable gait parameters. Men and women are comparable on postural control but show different gait parameters. These results may have implications in clinical decision-making in rehabilitation for frailty in older adults, men and women with Parkinson's disease when balance and gait are of concern.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".