MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416787395 · doi:10.1007/s40520-025-03268-1

Validity and reliability of assessing strength and balance improvements by videoconference in pre-frail and frail older adults

2025· article· en· W4416787395 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver J. Perkin, Ian Ju Liang, Carly McKay, Polly McGuigan, Max J. Western

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Clinical and Experimental Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Balance (ability)VideoconferencingValidityBalance testFunction (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Assessing older adults' physical function via videoconferencing technology is acceptable and feasible, enabling researchers and practitioners to monitor mobility remotely. However, validity of remote assessment in pre-frail and frail older adults, and its ability to detect change with intervention, has yet to be established. AIM: To establish the validity of remote physical function assessment in pre-frail and frail older adults compared to in-person assessment, and its reliability in detecting improvements in physical function during a 12-week exercise training intervention. METHODS: Participants aged ≥ 65 years identified as pre-frail or frail based on in-person Short Physical Performance Battery scores ≤ 8 completed remote and in-person assessment of the 5x sit-to-stand, 60-second sit-to-stand, and single leg standing balance four times over 12-weeks (n = 49 at baseline, 40 at follow-up), with one group improving physical function with homebased exercise. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Bland Altman plots were used to determine agreement between assessment settings and consistency across the range of observed scores respectively in both Exercise and Control groups over time. RESULTS: Remote assessment of sit-to-stand tests had good-to-excellent agreement with in-person assessment, and balance tests had moderate-to-good agreement. In the Exercise group, absolute bias in sit-to-stand tests was observed in both remote and in-person assessments at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, though this was not statistically different to the Control group. DISCUSSION: Remotely assessing physical function in pre-frail and frail older adults is promising when compared to in-person assessments; however, there may be a bias towards better test performance over time when assessed remotely compared to in-person. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring change in physical function in pre-frail and frail older adults using remote assessment is useful but should consider potential bias in measurement outcomes. Larger and more specific studies are needed to conclusively demonstrate the validity of remote assessment compared to in-person assessment when dealing with pre-frail and frail older people.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.435 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging Clinical and Experimental ResearchSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207