Impaired Standing Balance in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment after a Severe Fall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Fall-related sequelae as well as balance and gait impairments are more pronounced in older adults who are cognitively impaired (OACI) compared to older adults who are cognitively healthy (OACH). Evidence is scarce about differences in standing balance and gait in OACH and OACI after a fall, even though these are major risks for recurrent falls. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate early impairments in gait and balance, by adding inertial measurement units (IMUs) to a functional performance test in OACH and OACI after a severe fall with a presentation to the emergency department (ED) and immediate discharge. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The study sample was stratified into participants with and without probable cognitive impairment using the result of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment total score (maximum of 30 points). The cutoff for probable cognitive impairment was set at ≤ 24. Standing balance and gait parameters were measured using three IMUs in <i>n</i> = 69 OACH (72.0 ± 8.2 years) and <i>n</i> = 76 OACI (78.7 ± 8.1 years). Data were collected at participants’ homes as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in the “SeFallED” study within 4 weeks after presentation to the ED after a severe fall (German Clinical Trials Register ID: 00025949). ANCOVA was used for statistical analysis, adjusted for age. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The data indicated significantly more sway for OACI compared to OACH during balance tasks, whereas no differences in gait behavior were found. In detail, differences in standing balance were revealed for mean velocity (m/s) during parallel stance with eyes open (<inline-formula><mml:math id="m1" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.190, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and eyes closed on a balance cushion (<inline-formula><mml:math id="m2" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.059, <i>p</i> = 0.029), as well as during tandem stance (<inline-formula><mml:math id="m3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.034, <i>p</i> = 0.044) between OACI and OACH. Further differences between the two groups were detected for path length (m/s<sup>2</sup>) during parallel stance with eyes open (<inline-formula><mml:math id="m4" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.144, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and eyes closed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="m5" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.044, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.027) and for range (m/s<sup>2</sup>) during tandem (<inline-formula><mml:math id="m6" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.036, <i>p</i> = 0.036) and parallel stance with eyes closed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="m7" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.045, <i>p</i> = 0.032). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Even though both groups have experienced a severe fall with presentation to the ED in the preceding 4 weeks, balance control among OACI indicated a higher fall risk than among OACH. Therefore, effective secondary fall prevention efforts have to be established, particularly for OACI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".