The size of the functional base of support decreases with age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls occur more often as we age. To identify people at risk of falling, balance analysis requires an accurate base-of-support model. We previously developed a functional base-of-support (fBOS) model for standing young adults and showed that its area is smaller than the footprint area. Our fBOS model is a polygon that contains centre-of-pressure (COP) trajectories recorded as standing participants move their COP in the largest possible loop while keeping their feet flat on the ground. Here we assess how the size of the fBOS changes with age by comparing 38 younger (YA), 14 middle-aged (MA), and 34 older adults (OA). The fBOS area is smaller in older adults: OA area is 58% of the YA area ([Formula: see text]), and 59% of the MA area ([Formula: see text]), with no difference between YA and MA. The reduction in fBOS area among the OA is primarily caused by a reduction in the length of the fBOS. In addition, among older adults smaller fBOS areas correlated with a lower score on the Short Physical Performance Battery (τ=0.28, [Formula: see text]), a reduced walking speed (τ=0.25, [Formula: see text]), and a higher frailty level ([Formula: see text]). So that others can extend our work, we have made our fBOS models available online.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".