ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Assessment of balance control mechanisms in patient populations using perturbation-based modeling: a narrative review with clinical implications.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical assessments of balance often rely on indirect measures that offer limited insights into the underlying sensorimotor control mechanisms. Consequently, there is a need for standardized and objective quantification of balance control mechanisms. Research over the past 20 years has demonstrated that Central Sensorimotor Integration (CSMI)-type tests can reliably identify functionally relevant parameters accounting for experimentally observed dynamics of the balance control system. However, the complexity and the lack of standardization of this approach have led to heterogeneous methodologies and results, limiting the clinical adoption of CSMI-type testing. Thus, the objective of this narrative review is to explore the application of CSMI-type tasks in quantifying balance control across various clinical populations. We identified articles in PubMed and IEEE Xplore that utilized CSMI or similar methods, specifically those utilizing continuous, wide-bandwidth, pseudorandom surface or visual stimuli and those using linear feedback models of ankle joint control. A total of 18 articles were identified, covering older adults, and individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cataracts, heredity spastic paraplegia, lumbar spinal stenosis, mild traumatic brain injury, Parkinson's disease, peripheral neuropathies, and vestibular losses. We outline considerations for interpreting results across studies and recommend steps for standardizing CSMI-type testing to facilitate its implementation in clinical settings, aiming to better understand mechanistic deficits in balance control and to target rehabilitation.
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.