Identifying gait differences between Alzheimer's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies and their associations with regional amyloid deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare gait between individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals and to evaluate the association between gait and regional amyloid beta (Aβ) burden in AD and DLB. METHODS: We included 420 participants (70 AD, 70 DLB, 280 CU) in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Gait was assessed using a pressure-sensor walkway. Aβ deposition was analyzed with Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) positron emission topography (PET). RESULTS: The DLB group had reduced stride velocity, step length, and stride width variability, as well as increased double support percentage (%DS) and variability in step length, swing time, and step time compared to the AD and CU groups. Aβ burden was not associated with any gait outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study provides additional evidence that gait differs between AD and DLB. Larger studies are needed to investigate associations between Aβ burden and gait outcomes in dementia. HIGHLIGHTS: Gait was more impaired in dementia than in cognitively unimpaired (CU) controls. Compared with Alzheimer's disease (AD), Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) had more impaired pace, variability, and postural control. Step length and double support (%) distinguished DLB and AD with moderate accuracy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".