Concurrent validity and discriminative ability of force plate measures of balance during the sub-acute stage of stroke recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many objective measures of balance control, including force plate measures of standing balance, lack sufficient validation for use in the stroke population. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Do force plate measures of quiet standing balance during the sub-acute stage of stroke recovery have concurrent validity (i.e., correlate with functional balance measures) and discriminative ability (i.e., differentiate fallers from non-fallers and/or those with low-moderate versus high risk of falling)? METHODS: Participants completed one trial of quiet standing with eyes open, lasting for 30 seconds. History of falls was identified retrospectively, based on falls during the acute-care stay. Risk of falling was determined at admission to inpatient rehabilitation using the STRATIFY scale. Mean speeds of centre of pressure along the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral axes, weight-bearing asymmetry, and symmetry index were calculated. Concurrent validity of these measures were quantified against the Berg Balance Scale; their abilities in differentiating fallers from non-fallers, and individuals with low-moderate versus high risk of falling were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). RESULTS: Among the measures studied, mean speeds of centre of pressure along the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral axes demonstrated moderate concurrent validity (ρ=-0.490, and -0.440, respectively; p-values≤0.002), while the other two measures did not show sufficient concurrent validity. Weight-bearing asymmetry showed some ability in differentiating fallers from non-fallers (AUC=0.67); however, other measures demonstrated negligible to no discriminative ability. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that speeds of centre of pressure have moderate concurrent validity to quantify balance during the sub-acute stage of stroke; they can be used to better inform rehabilitation practice about the balance ability following a stroke. Weight-bearing asymmetry has some ability to discriminate people with and without a history of falls; however, research is required to identify its ability to discriminate future fallers and non-fallers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".