Multiple sclerosis and related disorders · 2025
Does cognitive performance explain the gap between physiological and perceived fall-risk in people with multiple sclerosis?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zanotto Tobia, Pradeep Kumar Danya, Golan Daniel, Wilken Jeffrey, Doniger Glen M, Zarif Myassar, Bumstead Barbara, Buhse Marijean, Weller Joanna, Morrow Sarah A, Penner Iris-Katharina, Hancock Laura, Covey Thomas J, Ofori Edward, Peterson Daniel S, Motl Robert W, Bogaardt Hans, Barrera Marissa, Bove Riley, Karpatkin Herbert, Sosnoff Jacob J, Gudesblatt Mark
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is linked with increased risk of falls in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS), but it is not clear whether cognitive performance may help to account for the discordance between fall-risk due to actual physiological functioning and the individual's perception of their fall-risk. This study examined the relationship between cognitive performance and the concordance/discordance of physiological and perceived fall-risk in pwMS.
METHODS: In this single-center cross-sectional analysis of 201 pwMS, proxies for physiological (gait speed) and perceived (Modified Falls Efficacy Scale) fall-risk were collected. Participants were categorized into 4 groups using established cut-off values: high physiological - high perceived (Hphy-Hper), high physiological - low perceived (Hphy-Lper), low physiological - low perceived (Lphy-Lper), and low physiological - high perceived (Lphy-Hper) fall-risk. Cognitive performance was evaluated using the NeuroTrax computerized cognitive battery, which generates a global cognitive score (GCS) as well as scores for individual cognitive domains.
RESULTS: Overall, 27.4 % of participants exhibited a discordance between physiological and perceived fall-risk. Individuals with discordant fall-risk did not have worse cognitive scores than individuals with concordant fall-risk, whether GCS or individual cognitive domains. However, among concordant groups, participants in the Hphy-Hper group had worse cognitive scores (GCS) as well as information processing, attention, motor skills, executive function and visual spatial domain scores than participants in the Lphy-Lper group.
CONCLUSION: In this study, one in 4 pwMS had a discordance between their physiological and perceived fall-risk. This discordance was not explained by cognitive performance.
METHODS: In this single-center cross-sectional analysis of 201 pwMS, proxies for physiological (gait speed) and perceived (Modified Falls Efficacy Scale) fall-risk were collected. Participants were categorized into 4 groups using established cut-off values: high physiological - high perceived (Hphy-Hper), high physiological - low perceived (Hphy-Lper), low physiological - low perceived (Lphy-Lper), and low physiological - high perceived (Lphy-Hper) fall-risk. Cognitive performance was evaluated using the NeuroTrax computerized cognitive battery, which generates a global cognitive score (GCS) as well as scores for individual cognitive domains.
RESULTS: Overall, 27.4 % of participants exhibited a discordance between physiological and perceived fall-risk. Individuals with discordant fall-risk did not have worse cognitive scores than individuals with concordant fall-risk, whether GCS or individual cognitive domains. However, among concordant groups, participants in the Hphy-Hper group had worse cognitive scores (GCS) as well as information processing, attention, motor skills, executive function and visual spatial domain scores than participants in the Lphy-Lper group.
CONCLUSION: In this study, one in 4 pwMS had a discordance between their physiological and perceived fall-risk. This discordance was not explained by cognitive performance.