Games and Telerehabilitation for Balance Impairments and Gaze Dysfunction: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital media and gaming have received considerable interest from researchers and clinicians as a model for learning a broad range of complex tasks and facilitating the transfer of skills to daily life. These emerging rehabilitation technologies have the potential to improve clinical outcomes and patient participation because they are engaging, motivating, and accessible. Our research goal is to develop preventative and therapeutic point-of-care eHealth applications that will lead to equivalent or better long-term health outcomes and health care costs than existing programs. We have produced a novel computer-aided tele-rehabilitation platform that combines computer game-based exercises with tele-monitoring. OBJECTIVE: Compare the therapeutic effectiveness of an in-home, game-based rehabilitation program (GRP) to standard care delivered in an outpatient physical therapy clinic on measures of balance, gaze control, dizziness, and health-related quality of life. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, single-blind pilot trial will be conducted. Fifty-six participants with a diagnosis of peripheral vestibular disorder will be randomly assigned to either usual physical therapy (comparator group) or to a game-based intervention (experimental group). Measures to be assessed will include gaze control, dynamic balance, and self-reported measures of dizziness. RESULTS: The project was funded and enrollment was started in August 2014. To date, 36 participants have been enrolled. There have been 6 drop-outs. It is expected that the study will be completed January 2016 and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in Spring of 2016. CONCLUSIONS: A successful application of this rehabilitation program would help streamline rehabilitation services, leverage therapist time spent with clients, and permit regular practice times at the client's convenience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02134444; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02134444 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6cE18bqqY).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".