ArticleScientific reports2021
Discrimination of standing postures between young and elderly people based on center of pressure.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationships of functional connectivity of motor cortex, primary somatosensory cortex, and cerebellum to balance performance in middle-aged and older adults.Neurobiology of aging · 2025Article
- Predictability of postural sway: unraveling the impact of simulated somatosensory deficits using a rambling-trembling approach.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Lifespan changes in postural control.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- EMG-EMG coherence during voluntary control of human standing tasks: a systematic scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Control of structural redundancy from the head to trunk in the human upright standing revealed using a data-driven approach.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Impact of age on the postural stability measured by a virtual reality tracker-based posturography and a pressure platform system.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Posturography is utilized to assess the influence of aging on postural control. Although this measurement is advantageous for finding group-level differences between the young and the elderly, it is unclear whether it has the potential to differentiate elderly individuals who are affected by various impacts of aging. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of posturography to discriminate elderly individuals from young adults. We investigated the performances of the random forest classifiers constructed from center of pressure (COP) indices for discriminating standing postures between healthy elderly and young people. Postural sways in 19 young and 31 community-dwelling elderly participants were measured using force plates in 4 standing conditions: bipedal standing, standing on a narrow base, standing on foam rubber, and standing with eyes closed. We further verified the informative predictors that contributed to the prediction model. As the results, the classifier based on the COP indices for standing on foam rubber showed the best performance (accuracy: 93.4%, sensitivity: 94.4%, specificity: 93.6%, area under the curve of receiving operator characteristics: 0.95), followed by the classifier for standing with eyes closed. The informative predictors varied depending on the postural conditions. Our findings demonstrated the potential of posturography for identifying elderly postures. The evaluation of sensory re-weighting using the appropriate COP indices would be a useful clinical tool for detecting the progress of aging on postural control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.