Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Discrimination of Frailty Phenotype by KinectTM-Based Stepping Parameters
Y Osuka, N Takeshima, N Kojima, T Kohama, E Fujita, M Kusunoki, Y Kato, W F Brechue et al.. JAR life, 2023-12-20
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The number (%) of participants with frailty were 51 (9.1). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (95% confidence interval) of a parameter consisting of SN and KMD for frailty was 0.72 (0.64, 0.79). Stepping parameters evaluated using KinectTM provided acceptable ability in identifying frailty phenotype, making it a practical screening tool in primary care and home settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Osuka, Y., Takeshima, N., Kojima, N., Kohama, T., Fujita, E., Kusunoki, M., et al. (2023). Discrimination of Frailty Phenotype by KinectTM-Based Stepping Parameters. JAR life. https://doi.org/10.14283/jarlife.2023.17
Vancouver
Osuka Y, Takeshima N, Kojima N, Kohama T, Fujita E, Kusunoki M, et al. Discrimination of Frailty Phenotype by KinectTM-Based Stepping Parameters. JAR life. 2023. doi:10.14283/jarlife.2023.17. PMID: 38186668.
BibTeX
@article{osuka2023-38186668,
author = {Osuka, Y and Takeshima, N and Kojima, N and Kohama, T and Fujita, E and Kusunoki, M and Kato, Y and Brechue, W F and others},
title = {{Discrimination of Frailty Phenotype by KinectTM-Based Stepping Parameters}},
journal = {JAR life},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.14283/jarlife.2023.17},
pmid = {38186668},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jarlife.2023.17}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The number (%) of participants with frailty were 51 (9.1).
- The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (95% confidence interval) of a parameter consisting of SN and KMD for frailty was 0.72 (0.64, 0.79).
- Stepping parameters evaluated using KinectTM provided acceptable ability in identifying frailty phenotype, making it a practical screening tool in primary care and home settings.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JAR life) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38186668) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.