MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410575436 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323569

Immediate effects of visual feedback on the accuracy of foot landing adjustments in older people with diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional study

2025· article· en· W4410575436 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Martin, Simon Taylor, Shabnam Pejhan, Blynn L. Shideler, Rajna Ogrin, Rezaul Begg

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusTreadmillFoot (prosody)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes Mellitus in older adults reduces the accuracy of foot landing adjustments and increases the risk of falling. This study investigated whether targeted visual feedback enhances the accuracy of the foot landing in older participants with diabetes. Forty-eight volunteers in three groups of young, healthy older and older adults with diabetes participated. During treadmill walking, Nexus Vicon software streamed real-time orientation data of two markers on the first toes into MATLAB scripts through a Visual3D server. The system visualised real-meaningful step length or minimum toe clearance (MTC) in each step on a monitor in front of a treadmill at eye level. Participants responded to four subject-specific step-length (±10% mean baseline step length) or MTC targets (3.5 and 5.5 cm higher than the mean baseline MTC). One target was displayed every 10 steps and removed after 10 steps when participants walked without seeing any target, then a new or the same target appeared and stayed on for another 10 steps. Tasks were increasing or decreasing baseline step length or increasing the baseline MTC in response to virtual targets. The accuracy (absolute error) of each step adjustment in each 10-step block with a target was calculated. The mean accuracy of Step 1 and the mean accuracy of Steps 2-10 were measured and compared within and between groups using three-way ANOVA tests. Errors significantly differed between conditions (Step 1 and Steps 2-10) in all groups. All groups showed reduced errors in Step 1 during Steps 2-10. Among groups, the group with diabetes presented the greatest errors in Step 1 and Steps 2-10. These findings suggest that meaningful visual feedback about spatial gait parameters (step length, MTC) can improve foot-landing accuracy in older participants with diabetes, highlighting its potential as a training tool to prevent falls in this high-risk population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→