Postural Control Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials for Older Adults Balance: A Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to identify and characterize the measures employed for assessing postural control in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of balance interventions in older adults with the reference to the Systems Framework for Postural Control. A scoping review was conducted, and RCTs of balance interventions in older adults published from 2013 to March 2023 were considered for inclusion. Two hundred and seventy-one studies were included with a total of 49 different measures used; the Timed Up and Go test being the most commonly employed. The median number of components of postural control assessed per study was five. The most frequently assessed components were motor systems and static stability, while reactive postural control, cognitive influences and verticality were the least frequently assessed. Postural control in RCTs of balance in older adults was assessed using a wide range of measures, but also from the perspective of a limited number of components.
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 | 0.106 | 0.353 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".