Static and Dynamic Balance Is Impaired in Patients With Long‐Term, Well‐Controlled Acromegaly: A Cross‐Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective Balance impairment is an underrecognized complication of acromegaly with potentially serious consequences for affected patients. In this study, we aimed to assess the balance in patients with long‐term acromegaly compared to non‐acromegalic controls. Design Cross‐sectional study. Patients and Measurements Seventeen patients with acromegaly and 17 age‐ and sex‐matched controls were examined using a force platform measuring the Centre of Pressure area (CoParea) and velocity (CoPvelocity), the timed up‐and‐go (TUG) test, hand grip and knee extension dynamometry, nerve conduction measurements, visual acuity tests, and questionnaires concerning fear of falling and joint pain (Falls Efficacy Scale [FES‐I] and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]). Descriptive statistics and linear regression analyses were used to compare groups. Results Compared to controls, participants with acromegaly (mean acromegaly duration 13 [±8.8] years, latest mean IGF‐I standard deviation score 1.2 [±1.59]) had significantly increased CoParea adjusted for neural and visual function. When performing a difficult executive task, the CoParea was impaired, both with (β: 2.24 [1.29; 3.92], p = 0.01) and without (β: 2.09 [1.02; 4.26], p = 0.04) a cushion under their feet, as compared to controls. Mean TUG time was significantly higher in patients with acromegaly than controls (β: 1.24 [0.07; 2.42], p = 0.04), and correlated with self‐reported joint pain (β: 0.04 [0.0004; 0.08], p = 0.05). Conclusions Both static and dynamic balance is impaired in patients with long‐term controlled acromegaly, warranting clinical attention. Further studies are needed to address therapeutic options for this overlooked and potentially serious complication.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".