MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486734774 · doi:10.1002/9780471740360.ebs1393

Gait Retraining After Neurological Disorders

2006· other· en· W1486734774 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering · 2006
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationRetrainingGaitSpinal cord injuryGait trainingTreadmillFunctional electrical stimulationFunctional movementPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapySpinal cordNeuroscienceStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Neurological disorders like traumatic brain injury, stroke, and spinal cord injury often adversely affect a person's ability to walk. Restoration of gait function is an important goal in the rehabilitation of these patients. Appropriate motor training can facilitate adaptations in the nervous system to recover function after an injury. Important aspects of motor training include task‐specific performance and repetition of the affected movement. This means that to improve walking, the patient must walk. Body‐weight supported treadmill training is becoming increasingly accepted as a valuable strategy for gait rehabilitation after neurological injury. Treadmills that run at slow locomotor speeds allow patients who are partially unloaded from their body weight to walk, possibly with manual assistance by one or more therapists. However, manual therapy is limited in terms of duration, repeatability, and quantification. Robotic devices allow longer training sessions with better support and control of the leg movements. Current developments are directed to patient‐cooperative strategies, which allow the robotic device to adapt to the patient's needs and efforts. Furthermore, proper design of these devices leaves open many possibilities for a repertoire of additional assessment tools that measure patients’ performance during training and other clinical parameters. Future directions in this field include combining robotic devices with functional electrical stimulation and the development of robotic orthoses for retraining overground walking.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it