Relationship Between Executive Function Subdomains and Postural Balance in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Executive function (EF) deficits are a significant risk factor for falls among older adults (OAs). However, relationship between EF subdomains (shifting, updating, and inhibition), postural balance (PB), and fall risk in healthy OAs, remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between EF subdomains (shifting, updating, and inhibition) and PB, and to assess their impact on risk of falls in community-dwelling OAs. METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving 50 OAs aged over 60 years (average age of 72 years) was conducted. Participants underwent assessments of EF subdomains and PB using validated tests. A correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationships between EF and PB. RESULTS: The study revealed significant correlations between subdomains and PB. Mental set shifting (r = -.539; p < .001) and inhibition (r = -.395; p = .050) exhibited inverse relationships with PB. Stepwise multiple linear regression showed that Trail Making Test Part B was associated with the PB (R2 = .42, p < .001). CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance of assessing EF subdomains, particularly shifting and inhibition, to identify risk of falls. Trail Making Test Part B largely explains the variability of the PB. Integrating PB assessments and EF training, such as the Mini-BESTest, into routine care can be vital for fall prevention strategies. Significance/Implications: This knowledge underscores the need for cognitive training interventions focusing on shifting and inhibition to enhance PB and potentially reduce falls. Additionally, incorporation of EF assessment tools as Trail Making Test Part B and the Mini-BESTest into routine clinical practice for community-dwelling OAs is recommended to address fall prevention strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".