Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks

dc.contributor.authorGalán-Mercant, Alejandro
dc.contributor.authorCuesta-Vargas, Antonio
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-14T11:16:44Z
dc.date.available2025-02-14T11:16:44Z
dc.date.issued2014-02-21
dc.departamentoFisioterapia
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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/s2 frail elderly versus -8.49 (-12.1/-5.23) m/s2 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/s2 frail elderly versus -5.93 (-6.87/-4.51) m/s2 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.es_ES
dc.identifier.citationGalán-Mercant A, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks. BMC Res Notes. 2014 Feb 21;7:100. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-100. PMID: 24559490; PMCID: PMC3940296.es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1756-0500-7-100
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10630/37879
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherBMC Research Noteses_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.subjectAcelerómetroes_ES
dc.subject.otherFrailty syndromees_ES
dc.subject.otherExpanded timed-get-up-and-go testes_ES
dc.subject.otheriPhonees_ES
dc.subject.otherInertial sensores_ES
dc.titleDifferences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional taskses_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.type.hasVersionVoRes_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication94126d4b-371d-4727-a252-f4182972d4b6
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery94126d4b-371d-4727-a252-f4182972d4b6

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2014 Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks.pdf
Size:
324.96 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

Collections