Impact of Spasticity on Balance Control During Quiet Standing in Persons Post-Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of the problem: Balance impairments and falls are common among people with stroke. Muscle spasticity is also common and may influence balance control. However, the effect of spasticity on balance control among people with stroke is not well understood. Methods: Twenty-seven post-stroke individuals with low or high spasticity at the ankle completed quiet standing trials with eyes open and closed. Balance control was measured by estimating centre of pressure (COP) movement and trunk sway. Results: Individuals with high spasticity had greater COP velocity, trunk sway velocity, and trunk sway velocity frequency, particularly in the eyes closed condition. These effects were predominantly in the mediolateral direction (vision by group interaction effects p= 0.033, p= 0.037, and p= 0.015 respectively). Main effect of group revealed that individuals with high spasticity had higher mediolateral mean power frequency measures (p= 0.045). Conclusion: Individuals with high spasticity post-stroke demonstrated greater balance control challenges especially in absence of vision. Furthermore, these challenges were specifically noted in the frontal plane.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".