Adverse Effects of Mobility Aids on Postural Stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although mobility aids such as walkers and canes are often prescribed to aid in balance control, sorne studies have suggested that such deviees may actually increase risk of falling in certain situations.This thesis investigated specifie effects of holding a mobility aid on the ability to perform adequate compensatory reactions to unexpected postural perturbations.Two major studies were performed.Both studies used sudden, unpredictable platform translations to evoke balancing reactions that involved rapid compensatory limb movements, either stepping or grasping.The first study investigated the potential for walkers or canes to interfere with, or constrain, lateral movement of the legs and thereby impede execution of compensatory stepping reactions during lateral loss of balance.Lateral compensatory stepping reactions were evoked in ten healthy young adults (22-27 years) by sudden mediolateral platform translations.Subjects used no BNS -base-width neutra!step BOS -base of support CLS -counter-lateral step CNS -central nervous system COM -center of mass cos -crossover step COP -center of pressure LLS -loaded-leg step m-1 -mediolateral sss -side-step sequence xvi
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".