Cited by 14Children's Physical and Motor DevelopmentGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Quantitative gait assessment in children with 16p11.2 syndrome

Open access
Goldman, Sylvie, McCullough, Aston K., Young, Sally Dunaway, Mueller, Carly, Stahl, Adrianna, Zoeller, Audrey, Abbruzzese, Laurel Daniels, Rao, Ashwini K. +1 more·2019·Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Abstract

Background: Neurodevelopmental disorders such as 16p11.2 syndrome are frequently associated with motor impairments including locomotion. The lack of precise measures of gait, combined with the challenges inherent in studying children with neurodevelopmental disorders, hinders quantitative motor assessments. Gait and balance are quantifiable measures that may help to refine the motor phenotype in 16p11.2. The characterization of motor profile is useful to study the trajectories of locomotion performance of children with genetic variants and may provide insights into neural pathway dysfunction based on genotype/phenotype model. Methods: Thirty-six children (21 probands with 16p11.2 deletion and duplication mutation and 15 unaffected siblings), with a mean age of 8.5 years (range 3.2–15.4) and 55% male, were enrolled. Of the probands, 23% (n = 6) had a confirmed diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and were all male. Gait assessments included 6-min walk test (6MWT), 10-m walk/run test (10MWR), timed-up-and-go test (TUG), and spatio-temporal measurements of preferred- and fast-paced walking. The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory-Computer Adaptive Tests (PEDI-CAT), a caregiver-reported functional assessment, was administered. Measures of balance were calculated using percent time in double support and base of support. Analyses of the six children with ASD were described separately. Results: Thirty-six participants completed the protocol. Compared with sibling controls, probands had significantly lower scores on the 6MWT (p = 0.04), 10MWR (p = 0.01), and TUG (p = 0.005). Group differences were also identified in base of support (p = 0.003). Probands had significantly lower PEDI-CAT scores in all domains including the mobility scale (p < 0.001). Using age-matched subsamples, the ASD and non-ASD genetic variant groups had larger base of support compared to the controls. In the fast-paced condition, all participants increased their velocity, and there was a corresponding decrease in percent time in double support compared to the preferred-pace condition in all participants. Only the ASD group presented with upper limb arm/hand stereotypies. Conclusions: Children with 16p11.2, with and without ASD, present with balance impairment during locomotion activities. Probands performed worse on functional assessments, and quantitative measures revealed differences in base of support. These results highlight the importance of using precise measures to differentiate motor dysfunction in children with neurodevelopmental disorders.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s11689-019-9286-9

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldman, S., McCullough, A. K., Young, S. D., Mueller, C., Stahl, A., Zoeller, A., Abbruzzese, L. D., Rao, A. K., & Montes, J.
Affiliations
Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Goldman, Sylvie
Venue
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Published
2019-10-27
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
26-26
ISSN
  • 1866-1947 (ISSN-L)
  • 1866-1955
OpenAlex
W2982053794
Cited by
14
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
  • Simons Foundation
  • Irving Medical Center, Columbia University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
gait, balance, motor impairment, autism spectrum disorder, neurodevelopmental disorders, 6-minute walk test, Timed Up and Go test, base of support, double support, functional mobility, children, genotype-phenotype correlation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Autistic Disorder, Child, Child, Preschool, Chromosome Deletion, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 16, Postural Balance, Female, Humans, Male, Intellectual Disability, Motor Activity, Motor Skills, Gait Disorders, Neurologic, Chromosome Disorders, Siblings

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review