ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Scaling correction in pediatric center-of-pressure analysis: a dual-track computational framework for standardized balance assessment.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we developed and validated a standardized computational framework for pediatric balance assessment by integrating anthropometric normalization and a dual-track analytical architecture into a unified center-of-pressure (COP) signal-processing pipeline. Methods: This study included 90 typically developing children. They were stratified into age groups of 4, 6, and 10 years (n = 30 per group), balanced by sex. The children performed bipedal stance tasks under eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions. Static balance was assessed using a Zebris force platform (120 Hz). COP sway area, mediolateral displacement, and anteroposterior displacement were measured. Two parallel datasets were processed that included raw COP signals and leg length-normalized COP signals. Both datasets were subjected to 2 (sex) × 3 (age) analysis of variance to evaluate scaling sensitivity. Coefficients of variation were computed to assess system-level dispersion. Results: Anthropometric normalization markedly increased parameter sensitivity. Under the eyes-open condition, normalized COP sway area and anteroposterior displacement revealed age effects not detectable in the raw dataset, indicating scaling bias in uncorrected COP signals. The dual-track comparison confirmed that normalization functions as a computational validation component rather than a statistical add-on. For most COP parameters, the coefficients of variation exceeded 50%, indicating substantial interindividual variability consistent with developmental heterogeneity rather than measurement error. Conclusion: The proposed framework advances pediatric balance assessment from a descriptive developmental comparison to a standardized, bias-aware signal-processing architecture. By integrating anthropometric scaling correction and dual-track validation into a unified COP signal-processing pipeline, the framework enhances scaling sensitivity, inferential validity, and reproducibility. It is readily deployable within intelligent clinical screening systems and supports the development of age-stratified reference databases and early detection algorithms for pediatric neuromotor assessment.
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.