Construct Validity of a Wearable Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) in Measuring Postural Sway and the Effect of Visual Deprivation in Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial Motor sensors (IMUs) are valid instruments for measuring postural sway but their ability to detect changes derived from visual deprivation in healthy older adults requires further investigations. We examined the validity and relationship of IMU sensor-derived postural sway measures compared to force plates for different eye conditions in healthy older adults (32 females, 33 males). We compared the relationship of the center of mass and center of pressure (CoM and CoP)-derived total length, root means square (RMS) distance, mean velocity, and 95% confidence interval ellipse area (95% CI ellipse area). In addition, we examined the relationship of the IMU sensor in discriminating between open- (EO) and closed-eye (EC) conditions compared to the force plate. A significant effect of the instruments and eye conditions was found for almost all the variables. Overall, EO and EC variables within (force plate r, from 0.38 to 0.78; IMU sensor r, from 0.36 to 0.69) as well as between (r from 0.50 to 0.88) instruments were moderately to strongly correlated. The EC:EO ratios of RMS distance and 95% CI ellipse area were not different between instruments, while there were significant differences between total length (p = 0.973) and mean velocity (p = 0.703). The ratios’ correlation coefficients between instruments ranged from moderate (r = 0.65) to strong (r = 0.87). The IMU sensor offers an affordable, valid alternative to a force plate for objective, postural sway assessment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".