| Literature DB >> 29794998 |
Christopher W Frames1,2, Rahul Soangra3, Thurmon E Lockhart4, John Lach5, Dong Sam Ha6, Karen A Roberto7, Abraham Lieberman8.
Abstract
Postural control is a key aspect in preventing falls. The aim of this study was to determine if obesity affected balance in community-dwelling older adults and serve as an indicator of fall risk. The participants were randomly assigned to receive a comprehensive geriatric assessment followed by a longitudinal assessment of their fall history. The standing postural balance was measured for 98 participants with a Body Mass Index (BMI) ranging from 18 to 63 kg/m², using a force plate and an inertial measurement unit affixed at the sternum. Participants' fall history was recorded over 2 years and participants with at least one fall in the prior year were classified as fallers. The results suggest that body weight/BMI is an additional risk factor for falling in elderly persons and may be an important marker for fall risk. The linear variables of postural analysis suggest that the obese fallers have significantly higher sway area and sway ranges, along with higher root mean square and standard deviation of time series. Additionally, it was found that obese fallers have lower complexity of anterior-posterior center of pressure time series. Future studies should examine more closely the combined effect of aging and obesity on dynamic balance.Entities:
Keywords: nonlinear; obesity; postural control
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29794998 PMCID: PMC6021983 DOI: 10.3390/s18061692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Demographics of the subject population.
| Health Status | Faller (F) | Non-Faller (NF) |
|---|---|---|
| Non-obese (NOB) | 14 | 20 |
| Obese (OB) | 8 | 22 |
| Overweight (OW) | 10 | 24 |
Age, height, weight and BMI ratio of each group.
| Fall Risk | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faller | Non-Faller | |||
| NOB | OB | NOB | OB | |
| Age (years) | 76.82 ± 6.87 | 72.29 ± 4.72 | 77.41 ± 8.49 | 72.68 ± 7.40 |
| Height (m) | 1.71 ± 0.06 | 1.61 ± 0.07 | 1.67 ± 0.11 | 1.64 ± 0.05 |
| Weight (kg) | 79.14 ± 8.18 | 80.77 ± 21.98 | 67.26 ± 12.41 | 87.66 ± 21.05 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.85 ± 2.08 | 31.27 ± 8.09 | 24.29 ± 2.16 | 32.65 ± 7.62 |
Gender ratio for each group.
| Gender | Fall Risk | Weight Status | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | NF | NOB | OB | OW | |
| Female | 12 | 53 | 21 | 19 | 25 |
| Male | 6 | 27 | 13 | 11 | 9 |
Figure 1(a) Median over all the center of pressure (COP) AP time series; (b) The lowest curve is obtained for m = 3 as it shows a minimum that is lower than 0.05. This minimum is reached for r = 0.25 for both AP and ML directions.
Figure 2Linear measures of postural stability (a) Mean Velocity; (b) Mean Radius; (c) Circular area; (d) Elliptical area; (e) COP Path length.
Means and standard deviations of force plate parameters.
| NOB | OB | OW | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | NF | F | NF | F | NF | |
| 9.69 ± 1.20 | 4.91 ± 3.57 | 13.36 ± 7.30 | 4.92 ± 3.90 | 5.19 ± 4.96 | 5.41 ± 3.52 | |
| 34.29 ± 14.44 | 26.53 ± 8.68 | 51.78 ± 20.77 | 26.73 ± 10.48 | 29.24 ± 13.47 | 30.49 ± 7.58 | |
| 15.40 ± 10.66 | 11.31 ± 5.36 | 17.42 ± 4.12 | 11.41 ± 6.39 | 11.31 ± 8.06 | 11.18 ± 5.54 | |
| 6.20 ± 2.25 | 5.13 ± 1.87 | 8.87 ± 3.33 | 5.18 ± 2.06 | 5.60 ± 2.32 | 5.93 ± 1.82 | |
| 3.05 ± 1.95 | 2.18 ± 1.15 | 3.53 ± 0.86 | 2.10 ± 1.21 | 2.15 ± 1.63 | 2.06 ± 0.94 | |
| 6.20 ± 2.25 | 5.13 ± 1.87 | 8.87 ± 3.33 | 5.19 ± 2.06 | 5.60 ± 2.32 | 5.94 ± 1.82 | |
| 3.05 ± 1.95 | 2.18 ± 1.15 | 3.53 ± 0.86 | 2.10 ± 1.21 | 2.16 ± 1.63 | 2.07 ± 0.94 | |
| 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.38 ± 0.06 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.40 ± 0.06 | |
| 0.39 ± 0.06 | 0.40 ± 0.07 | 0.38 ± 0.07 | 0.39 ± 0.06 | 0.42 ± 0.08 | 0.40 ± 0.06 | |
| 1.12 ± 0.16 | 1.14 ± 0.16 | 1.16 ± 0.23 | 1.15 ± 0.18 | 1.07 ± 0.15 | 1.09 ± 0.16 | |
| 1.37 ± 0.13 | 1.33 ± 0.12 | 1.40 ± 0.09 | 1.37 ± 0.10 | 1.30 ± 0.15 | 1.35 ± 0.12 | |
| 0.47 ± 0.12 | 0.54 ± 0.18 | 0.48 ± 0.14 | 0.48 ± 0.14 | 0.56 ± 0.12 | 0.52 ± 0.17 | |
| 0.55 ± 0.23 | 0.57 ± 0.23 | 0.44 ± 0.13 | 0.60 ± 0.26 | 0.62 ± 0.17 | 0.57 ± 0.21 | |
| 0.23 ± 0.22 | 0.25 ± 0.21 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.18 | 0.28 ± 0.21 | 0.19 ± 0.14 | |
| 0.23 ± 0.22 | 0.25 ± 0.21 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.18 | 0.28 ± 0.20 | 0.19 ± 0.14 | |
| 3.41 ± 1.03 | 4.13 ± 1.51 | 3.73 ± 1.68 | 3.33 ± 1.13 | 4.18 ± 0.98 | 4.09 ± 1.52 | |
| 3.41 ± 1.30 | 3.24 ± 1.03 | 3.17 ± 1.17 | 3.42 ± 1.51 | 3.58 ± 1.16 | 3.68 ± 1.27 | |
1 95% confidence ellipse area (cm2); 2 units in cm.
Mean and standard deviations of forceplate measures during Eyes Open and Eyes Closed conditions.
| Weight Status | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOB | OB | OW | ||||
| Eyes Closed | Eyes Open | Eyes Closed | Eyes Open | Eyes Closed | Eyes Open | |
| 0.42 ± 0.07 | 0.39 ± 0.06 | 0.42 ± 0.08 | 0.38 ± 0.06 | 0.44 ± 0.07 | 0.41 ± 0.07 | |
| 4.54 ± 2.65 | 4.06 ± 2.38 | 5.12 ± 3.93 | 4.33 ± 2.91 | 4.51 ± 2.51 | 3.97 ± 2.47 | |
| 24.66 ± 15.03 | 21.36 ± 13.14 | 26.08 ± 18.76 | 23.22 ± 16.69 | 24.00 ± 13.69 | 20.68 ± 12.42 | |
| 0.99 ± 0.19 | 1.06 ± 0.21 | 1.04 ± 0.23 | 1.09 ± 0.21 | 0.98 ± 0.19 | 1.05 ± 0.18 | |
| 0.63 ± 0.21 | 0.54 ± 0.20 | 0.58 ± 0.18 | 0.52 ± 0.20 | 0.63 ± 0.17 | 0.56 ± 0.18 | |
| 4.34 ± 1.74 | 3.58 ± 1.28 | 4.20 ± 1.58 | 3.40 ± 1.34 | 4.55 ± 1.59 | 3.89 ± 1.31 | |
Figure 3Forceplate signal based non-linear analysis showing (a) approximate entropy; the graph highlights (dashed red line) obese fallers have significantly lower complexity in anterior posterior direction with eyes open condition; (b) scaling exponent α and; the graph highlights (dashed red line) that obese fallers have significantly higher scaling exponents in anterior posterior direction during eyes open condition (c) sample entropy is significantly lower for AP time series derived from forceplate for fallers with obesity in eyes open condition (red dashed lines).
Means and standard deviations of IMU parameters.
| NOB | OB | OW | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | NF | F | NF | F | NF | |
| 40.17 ± 34.11 | 41.24 ± 43.69 | 68.87 ± 20.91 | 27.20 ± 14.16 | 32.83 ± 21.30 | 27.36 ± 15.74 | |
| 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.36 ± 0.04 | 0.37 ± 0.07 | 0.36 ± 0.04 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | |
| 1.58 ± 0.92 | 1.32 ± 0.44 | 2.17 ± 0.66 | 1.38 ± 0.50 | 1.16 ± 0.37 | 1.43 ± 0.55 | |
| 1.74 ± 1.01 | 1.41 ± 0.42 | 2.49 ± 0.57 | 1.47 ± 0.57 | 1.23 ± 0.38 | 1.63 ± 0.62 | |
| 8.19 ± 5.19 | 7.01 ± 2.26 | 12.45 ± 2.75 | 6.89 ± 2.17 | 6.41 ± 2.30 | 7.06 ± 2.19 | |
| 1.11 ± 0.21 | 1.11 ± 0.16 | 1.15 ± 0.22 | 1.01 ± 0.19 | 1.06 ± 0.12 | 1.05 ± 0.18 | |
| 1.26 ± 0.10 | 1.29 ± 0.12 | 1.27 ± 0.09 | 1.31 ± 0.09 | 1.36 ± 0.02 | 1.27 ± 0.09 | |
| 1.40 ± 0.31 | 1.54 ± 0.27 | 1.35 ± 0.19 | 1.54 ± 0.21 | 1.67 ± 0.11 | 1.47 ± 0.21 | |
| 8.43 ± 2.28 | 9.23 ± 2.25 | 7.84 ± 1.96 | 9.20 ± 2.04 | 10.71 ± 1.40 | 8.21 ± 2.28 | |
| 0.44 ± 0.07 | 0.41 ± 0.05 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 0.41 ± 0.05 | 0.44 ± 0.07 | 0.42 ± 0.06 | |
| 0.49 ± 0.21 | 0.55 ± 0.32 | 0.62 ± 0.15 | 0.44 ± 0.13 | 0.54 ± 0.34 | 0.42 ± 0.13 | |
| 0.56 ± 0.28 | 0.59 ± 0.33 | 0.75 ± 0.18 | 0.52 ± 0.18 | 0.61 ± 0.34 | 0.47 ± 0.14 | |
| 3.12 ± 1.52 | 3.93 ± 3.50 | 3.87 ± 0.70 | 2.51 ± 0.64 | 3.57 ± 2.41 | 2.62 ± 1.09 | |
| 0.96 ± 0.25 | 0.95 ± 0.14 | 0.93 ± 0.22 | 0.95 ± 0.15 | 0.88 ± 0.24 | 0.97 ± 0.16 | |
| 1.40 ± 0.04 | 1.39 ± 0.04 | 1.41 ± 0.04 | 1.42 ± 0.03 | 1.39 ± 0.08 | 1.41 ± 0.03 | |
| 1.82 ± 0.15 | 1.82 ± 0.14 | 1.82 ± 0.12 | 1.90 ± 0.10 | 1.86 ± 0.21 | 1.88 ± 0.09 | |
| 12.60 ± 2.00 | 12.48 ± 1.71 | 12.01 ± 1.32 | 12.57 ± 1.36 | 12.64 ± 1.97 | 12.78 ± 1.28 | |
1 95% confidence ellipse area (cm2); 2 units in cm.
Figure 4Inertial measurement units (IMU) based nonlinear analysis showing (a) approximate entropy; The graph highlights (dashed red-line) approximate entropy is significantly lower in obese fallers in anterior posterior direction during eyes open double limb stance; (b) scaling exponent α and; The graph highlights (dashed red-line) that the scaling exponent is significantly higher for obese fallers in anterior posterior direction during eyes open double limb stance; (c) sample entropy; The graph highlights (red dashed line) that fallers who were non-obese showed significantly lower complexity (measured by sample entropy)for AP time series derived from IMU.
Figure 5Ensemble patterns of postural stability of fallers and non-fallers exhibiting fallers with larger area of sway with lower sample entropy.
Figure 6Radar plot of significant discriminative parameters.