Dual‐task disparities in gait and functional mobility among older adults with a fall‐related mild traumatic brain injury and people living with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) increases dementia risk. Delays in diagnosis are common due to insensitive tools, prolonging symptoms and time to treatment. Dual‐task gait and functional mobility deficits are present post‐mTBI and in people living with dementia (PWD); however, it is unclear whether dual‐tasking can be used as a tool to differentiate between groups. This study aimed to 1) assess whether dual‐task mobility is more sensitive to detect differences between older adults with a mTBI relative to PWD than single‐task mobility; and 2) examine dual‐task cost between groups. Method n = 3 community‐dwelling older adults with a fall‐related mTBI (Age:68.6 years, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) = 23 points, 67% Female) and n = 25 PWD in residential care facilities (Age:82.1 years, MOCA = 10.2 points, 36% Female) wore 6 APDM inertial sensors and completed two usual pace walking trials (single‐task) with or without naming words (dual‐task). Participants also completed two trials of the timed‐up‐and‐go, which involved getting up from a chair, walking 3 m, turning around, walking back, and sitting down (single‐task) with or without completing a category task (dual‐task). Separate repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted for gait and the TUG. Result There were no between‐group interactions (p>0.05). There was a Condition by Measure interaction for gait (F(1.13,29.49) = 35.25, p<0.001, ηp 2 = 0.58) and functional mobility (F(1.53,39.89) = 6.0, p<0.01, ηp 2 = 0.19). Dual‐tasking provoked slower gait speed (dual‐task:0.36 m/s; single‐task:0.54 m/s), greater double limb support (dual‐task:38.0%; single‐task:31.8%), lower midswing elevation (dual‐task:0.91cm; single‐task:1.28cm), and shorter stride length (dual‐task:0.55m; single‐task:0.71m;p<0.001) than single‐tasking. The dual‐task TUG provoked longer time to completion (dual‐task:33.2s; single‐task:22.2s), smaller turn angle (dual‐task:120.7°; single‐task:140.2°), and slower turn velocity (dual‐task:80.3m/s; single‐task:94.1m/s) than the single‐task TUG. Conclusion There were no between‐group differences in single‐ or dual‐task mobility; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution as we have only tested n = 3 participants in the mTBI group, and data collection is ongoing. Both groups experienced some level of cognitive impairment, highlighting that the deficits observed in dual‐ relative to single‐task mobility were likely a manifestation of increased attention demand. Further work is underway to determine whether dual‐tasking may be a sensitive measure to screen and monitor mobility impairments in these populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".