ArticleBMC neurology2026
Turning versus straight walking under dual-task conditions: a preliminary study for identifying mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.
Article in BMC neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis preliminary study is the first to systematically compare dual-task turning versus straight walking metrics for detecting cognitive impairment in older adults.
methodsSeventy-five participants, 26 neurotypical (NT), 25 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 24 mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD), performed a dual-task walk and turn test. Gait and turn features were extracted and compared through two distinct models: walk-phase and turn-phase. Two models were evaluated (walk-phase vs. turn-phase) using a repeated nested cross-validation pipeline.
resultsThe turn-phase model achieved multiclass balanced-accuracy (macro-averaged recall across NT/aMCI/AD) 68.8% vs. 58.8% for the walk-phase (Wilcoxon p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67), a statistically significant yet clinically modest ~ 10-point gain. Class AUCs favored the turn-phase for AD (0.92 vs. 0.84) and NT (0.88 vs. 0.82), whereas aMCI discrimination was modest for both (≈ 0.63–0.65). Feature interpretation identified gait speed (walk-phase) and peak head speed and peak segmental angle (turn-phase) as the strongest contributors, with medium-to-large Hedges’ g for key turn features.
conclusionsFindings provide proof-of-concept that turn-phase metrics add discriminative information beyond straight walking. Given the modest absolute accuracy and limited aMCI performance, results should be considered preliminary and warrant external validation in larger and more diverse cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.