Cargando…
Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks
BACKGROUND: Physical conditions through gait and other functional task are parameters to consider for frailty detection. The aim of the present study is to measure and describe the variability of acceleration, angular velocity and trunk displacement in the ten meter Extended Timed Get-Up-and-Go test...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3940296/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24559490 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-100 |
_version_ | 1782305780736720896 |
---|---|
author | Galán-Mercant, Alejandro Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio I |
author_facet | Galán-Mercant, Alejandro Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio I |
author_sort | Galán-Mercant, Alejandro |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Physical conditions through gait and other functional task are parameters to consider for frailty detection. The aim of the present study is to measure and describe the variability of acceleration, angular velocity and trunk displacement in the ten meter Extended Timed Get-Up-and-Go test in two groups of frail and non-frail elderly people through instrumentation with the iPhone4® smartphone. Secondly, to analyze the differences and performance of the variance between the study groups (frail and non-frail). This is a cross-sectional study of 30 subjects aged over 65 years, 14 frail subjects and 16 non-frail subjects. RESULTS: The highest difference between groups in the Sit-to-Stand and Stand-to-Sit subphases was in the y axis (vertical vector). The minimum acceleration in the Stand-to-Sit phase was -2.69 (-4.17 / -0.96) m/s(2) frail elderly versus -8.49 (-12.1 / -5.23) m/s(2) non-frail elderly, p < 0.001. In the Gait Go and Gait Come subphases the biggest differences found between the groups were in the vertical axis: -2.45 (-2.77 /-1.89) m/s(2) frail elderly versus -5.93 (-6.87 / -4.51) m/s(2) non-frail elderly, p < 0.001. Finally, with regards to the turning subphase, the statistically significant differences found between the groups were greater in the data obtained from the gyroscope than from the accelerometer (the gyroscope data for the mean maximum peak value for Yaw movement angular velocity in the frail elderly was specifically 25.60°/s, compared to 112.8°/s for the non-frail elderly, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The inertial sensor fitted in the iPhone4® is capable of studying and analyzing the kinematics of the different subphases of the Extended Timed Up and Go test in frail and non-frail elderly people. For the Extended Timed Up and Go test, this device allows more sensitive differentiation between population groups than the traditionally used variable, namely time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3940296 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39402962014-03-04 Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks Galán-Mercant, Alejandro Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio I BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: Physical conditions through gait and other functional task are parameters to consider for frailty detection. The aim of the present study is to measure and describe the variability of acceleration, angular velocity and trunk displacement in the ten meter Extended Timed Get-Up-and-Go test in two groups of frail and non-frail elderly people through instrumentation with the iPhone4® smartphone. Secondly, to analyze the differences and performance of the variance between the study groups (frail and non-frail). This is a cross-sectional study of 30 subjects aged over 65 years, 14 frail subjects and 16 non-frail subjects. RESULTS: The highest difference between groups in the Sit-to-Stand and Stand-to-Sit subphases was in the y axis (vertical vector). The minimum acceleration in the Stand-to-Sit phase was -2.69 (-4.17 / -0.96) m/s(2) frail elderly versus -8.49 (-12.1 / -5.23) m/s(2) non-frail elderly, p < 0.001. In the Gait Go and Gait Come subphases the biggest differences found between the groups were in the vertical axis: -2.45 (-2.77 /-1.89) m/s(2) frail elderly versus -5.93 (-6.87 / -4.51) m/s(2) non-frail elderly, p < 0.001. Finally, with regards to the turning subphase, the statistically significant differences found between the groups were greater in the data obtained from the gyroscope than from the accelerometer (the gyroscope data for the mean maximum peak value for Yaw movement angular velocity in the frail elderly was specifically 25.60°/s, compared to 112.8°/s for the non-frail elderly, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The inertial sensor fitted in the iPhone4® is capable of studying and analyzing the kinematics of the different subphases of the Extended Timed Up and Go test in frail and non-frail elderly people. For the Extended Timed Up and Go test, this device allows more sensitive differentiation between population groups than the traditionally used variable, namely time. BioMed Central 2014-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3940296/ /pubmed/24559490 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-100 Text en Copyright © 2014 Galán-Mercant and Cuesta-Vargas; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Galán-Mercant, Alejandro Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio I Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks |
title | Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks |
title_full | Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks |
title_fullStr | Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks |
title_short | Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks |
title_sort | differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3940296/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24559490 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-100 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT galanmercantalejandro differencesintrunkaccelerometrybetweenfrailandnonfrailelderlypersonsinfunctionaltasks AT cuestavargasantonioi differencesintrunkaccelerometrybetweenfrailandnonfrailelderlypersonsinfunctionaltasks |