Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27271994›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Multivariate Analyses and Classification of Inertial Sensor Data to Identify Aging Effects on the Timed-Up-and-Go Test.

Danique Vervoort, Nicolas Vuillerme, Nienke Kosse, Tibor Hortobágyi, Claudine J C Lamoth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Danique VervoortUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Nicolas VuillermeUniversity Grenoble-Alpes, AGEIS, La Tronche, France.
Nienke KosseUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Tibor HortobágyiUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Claudine J C LamothUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many tests can crudely quantify age-related mobility decrease but instrumented versions of mobility tests could increase their specificity and sensitivity. The Timed-up-and-Go (TUG) test includes several elements that people use in daily life. The test has different transition phases: rise from a chair, walk, 180° turn, walk back, turn, and sit-down on a chair. For this reason the TUG is an often used test to evaluate in a standardized way possible decline in balance and walking ability due to age and or pathology. Using inertial sensors, qualitative information about the performance of the sub-phases can provide more specific information about a decline in balance and walking ability. The first aim of our study was to identify variables extracted from the instrumented timed-up-and-go (iTUG) that most effectively distinguished performance differences across age (age 18-75). Second, we determined the discriminative ability of those identified variables to classify a younger (age 18-45) and older age group (age 46-75). From healthy adults (n = 59), trunk accelerations and angular velocities were recorded during iTUG performance. iTUG phases were detected with wavelet-analysis. Using a Partial Least Square (PLS) model, from the 72-iTUG variables calculated across phases, those that explained most of the covariance between variables and age were extracted. Subsequently, a PLS-discriminant analysis (DA) assessed classification power of the identified iTUG variables to discriminate the age groups. 27 variables, related to turning, walking and the stand-to-sit movement explained 71% of the variation in age. The PLS-DA with these 27 variables showed a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 85%. Based on this model, the iTUG can accurately distinguish young and older adults. Such data can serve as a reference for pathological aging with respect to a widely used mobility test. Mobility tests like the TUG supplemented with smart technology could be used in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalMovementPostural BalanceAccelerometryAdolescentAdultAgedAgingAlgorithmsBiosensing TechniquesFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID27271994
PMCPMC4894562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.