MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404034450 · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2024.103301

Effects of freezing of gait on vertical ground reaction force in Parkinson's disease

2024· article· en· W4404034450 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Etoom, Ibrahem Hanafi, Alhadi M. Jahan, Auwal Abdullahi, Omar M. Elabd

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Movement Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround reaction forceGaitParkinson's diseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseMedicinePsychologyPhysicsClassical mechanicsInternal medicineKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) is a main kinetic gait analysis explaining body weight loading patterns. The study primarily aimed to understand effects of Freezing of gait (FoG) on vGRF in Parkinson's disease (PD). A secondary analysis for a walking dataset including biomechanical analyses for 26 PD participants (13 with FoG) was performed. Considering the normal pattern of vGRF curve, peaks during early stance (F1) and late stance (F3), and slope in- during mid-stance (F2) were used to represent the change in kinetic forces. vGRF parameters were compared between FoG and non-FoG participants, and at off- and on-medication. FoG participants showed higher vGRFs during mid-stance F2 magnitude (p = 0.003), and weaker vertical propulsion; F3 magnitude (p < 0.001). This coincided with delayed weight acceptance; F1 timing (p = 0.019), and midstance peaks; F2 timing (p = 0.004). At off-medications, the F2 magnitude was significantly higher (p = 0.006), F3 magnitude lower (p = 0.001), and F1 time slower (p = 0.034) in FoG. At on-medication, F3 magnitude was still significantly lower (p = 0.017), and F2 time was slower (p = 0.037) in FoG. This study reveals that FoG significantly affects vGRF, particularly F3 magnitude during the push-off phase. Analyzing vGRF is crucial for understanding and managing FoG, allowing for more targeted interventions to improve FoG outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Movement ScienceSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207