MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Residual Effects of a Traumatic Brain Injury on Locomotor Capacity

2003· article· en· W1994082227 on OpenAlexaff
Bradford J. McFadyen, Bonnie Swaine, Denyse Dumas, Anne Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitTraumatic brain injuryBalance (ability)STRIDECadenceMedicinePopulationPoison controlPsychologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To understand the residual locomotor effects of a traumatic brain injury (TBI) on unobstructed and obstructed walking. PARTICIPANTS: Eight young, high-functioning adults with TBI and 4 healthy subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spatiotemporal gait parameters and their relation to specific clinical measures of severity and locomotor and balance abilities. RESULTS: Subjects with TBI walked slower and showed a tendency for greater foot clearances in all conditions. Slower walking was due to decreased stride lengths and not cadence, while higher foot clearances were due to placing the trailing foot farther from the obstacle and increasing hip flexion angles during avoidance. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that this highly functional TBI population used increased caution. Measures of injury severity did not provide simple predictions of locomotor ability, but the one-legged stance test with eyes closed correlated to walking capacity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207