Functional Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Grasping in Spinal Cord Injury: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper limb rehabilitation strategies for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) have evolved greatly over the last few decades. Amongst these strategies, functional electrical stimulation (FES) approaches have been widely recognized as the most promising. To date, 2 FES-based approaches for improving upper limb function in individuals with SCI have emerged. One approach proposes the use of FES as a permanent orthotic device that patients have to use all the time to grasp and release objects. In this application, the FES systems for grasping are better known as neuroprostheses for grasping. The second approach has emerged only recently, and it proposes the use of FES as a short-term therapeutic intervention with an objective to help the damaged central nervous system relearn how to execute the grasping function voluntarily. More specifically, after the therapy is completed and the FES system is permanently removed, the patients are able to grasp and release objects on their own, that is, without the help of FES device. In its first embodiment, FES technology is used as a permanent orthosis; in its second embodiment, it is used as a therapeutic tool.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".