MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Review and Analysis of Frontal Plane Stability Assistance for Elderly Individuals

2023· article· en· W4390993549 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andreas Beaulieu, Marc Doumit

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStability (learning theory)Computer sciencePlane (geometry)Machine learningMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gait assistance for the elderly population is crucial for promoting the longevity of individuals within the aging Canadian population. Elderly individuals have greatly benefited from the recent development of walking assist devices to maintain their ability to commute and partake in daily activities; however, falls still represent an enormous factor in geriatric injury and injury-related death tolls. Frontal plane instability has been reported to be a principal culprit of elderly falls. Degenerative muscle loss in the lower limbs, primarily hip abductor/adductor muscles and ankle invertor/evertor muscles, as well as deteriorating neurological balance control are often to blame for one’s inability to stabilize their center of mass and control lateral pelvic motion throughout gait. While various solutions for potential frontal plane balance assist exoskeletons are currently being developed, they remain in early-stage development and are unfeasible for day-to-day usage. Furthermore, minimal research has been conducted on the optimization of exoskeleton designs using evidence-based approaches for increasing and/or regaining an individual’s frontal stability. This paper discusses frontal plane stability, and age-related musculoskeletal and balance coordination challenges surrounding frontal plane stability in elderly gait. Thereafter, current ambulatory devices and novel mediolateral stabilization assist exoskeletons are reviewed based on their impact on frontal stability for elderly individuals focussing on their effectiveness and feasibility for daily use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→