Use of Prolonged Standing for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prolonged standing in people with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) has the potential to affect a number of health-related areas such as reflex activity, joint range of motion, or well-being. The purpose of this study was to document the patterns of use of prolonged standing and their perceived effects in subjects with SCIs. SUBJECTS: The subjects were 152 adults with SCIs (103 male, 49 female; mean age=34 years, SD=8, range=18-55) who returned mailed survey questionnaires. METHODS: A 17-item self-report survey questionnaire was sent to the 463 members of a provincial spinal cord support organization. RESULTS: Survey responses for 26 of the 152 respondents were eliminated from the analysis because they had minimal effects from their injuries and did not need prolonged standing as an extra activity. Of the 126 remaining respondents, 38 respondents (30%) reported that they engaged in prolonged standing for an average of 40 minutes per session, 3 to 4 times a week, as a method to improve or maintain their health. The perceived benefits included improvements in several health-related areas such as well-being, circulation, skin integrity, reflex activity, bowel and bladder function, digestion, sleep, pain, and fatigue. The most common reason that prevented the respondents from standing was the cost of equipment to enable standing. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Considering the many reported benefits of standing, this activity may be useful for people with SCI. This study identified a number of body systems and functions that may need to be investigated if clinical trials of prolonged standing in people with SCI are undertaken.
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
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".