ArticleWearable technologies2022
Estimating balance, cognitive function, and falls risk using wearable sensors and the sit-to-stand test.
Article in Wearable technologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Technologies and Biomarkers for Locomotor Capacity Assessment in Older Adults: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Normalized EMG Amplitude During Repeated Sit-to-Stand Transfers in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quantitative assessment of the 30-second sit-to-stand test using computer vision technology for physical therapists.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Time-stratified daily walking speed measurement via smartphone and its predictive utility for mild cognitive impairment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units on gait, static balance and functional mobility performance among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- The role of obesity in physiological stress, balance, and proprioception during repetitive manual material handling tasks.PloS one · 2025Article
- Quantifying sitting posture: A pilot feasibility study of computer vision and wearable sensors (Posture Lab) using a manikin model.Wearable technologies · 2025Article
- One-Dimensional Motion Representation for Standing/Sitting and Their Transitions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The five times sit-to-stand test (FTSS) is an established functional test, used clinically as a measure of lower-limb strength, endurance and falls risk. We report a novel method to estimate and classify cognitive function, balance impairment and falls risk using the FTSS and body-worn inertial sensors. 168 community dwelling older adults received a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment which included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Each participant performed an FTSS, with inertial sensors on the thigh and torso, either at home or in the clinical environment. Adaptive peak detection was used to identify phases of each FTSS from torso or thigh-mounted inertial sensors. Features were then extracted from each sensor to quantify the timing, postural sway and variability of each FTSS. The relationship between each feature and MMSE and BBS was examined using Spearman's correlation. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to examine the intra-session reliability of each feature. A Poisson regression model with an elastic net model selection procedure was used to estimate MMSE and BBS scores, while logistic regression and sequential forward feature selection was used to classify participants according to falls risk, cognitive decline and balance impairment. BBS and MMSE were estimated using cross-validation with low root mean squared errors of 2.91 and 1.50, respectively, while the cross-validated classification accuracies for balance impairment, cognitive decline, and falls risk were 81.96, 72.71, and 68.74%, respectively. The novel methods reported provide surrogate measures which may have utility in remote assessment of physical and cognitive function.
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.