MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Residual Effects of a Traumatic Brain Injury on Locomotor Capacity

2003· article· en· W1994082227 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

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
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