Whole‐Body Vibration During Passive Standing in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Effects of Plate Choice, Frequency, Amplitude, and Subject's Posture on Vibration Propagation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, few pharmacologic or rehabilitation interventions for sublesional osteoporosis (SLOP) or low bone mass of the hip and knee regions after spinal cord injury (SCI) have produced significant or sustained increases in lower extremity bone mineral density. Whole body vibration (WBV) is a potential intervention for the prevention and/or treatment of SLOP. OBJECTIVE: To identify the optimal WBV conditions (ie, plate, frequency, amplitude, and subject posture) among men with chronic SCI during passive standing and facilitate the implementation and future evaluation of the efficacy of WBV and passive standing for prevention and treatment of SLOP in men with SCI. DESIGN: This phase 0 device development study assessed the lower extremity propagation characteristics of WBV in men with and without SCI by using a variety of a priori specified plates, frequencies, amplitudes, and postures that facilitate lower extremity vibration absorption while minimizing vibration propagation to the head. SETTING: A tertiary SCI rehabilitation center in Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy men with chronic paraplegia (n = 5) and those without SCI (n = 7), ages 20-50 years, weight 68-113 kg, and height 168-188 cm. INTERVENTIONS: An EasyStand standing frame (Altimate Medical Inc, Morton, MN) was fitted onto 2 commercially available vibration platforms: WAVE (WAVE Manufacturing Inc, Windsor, Ontario, Canada) and Juvent (Juvent Medical Inc, Somerset, NJ). Accelerometers were attached to the participants' forehead, hip, knee, and ankle to measure vibration propagation. Vibration parameters evaluated were posture (knee angles of 140°, 160°, and 180° [180° for Juvent only]), vibration frequency (25 Hz, 35 Hz, and 45 Hz), and vibration amplitude (0.6 mm and 1.2 mm [WAVE only]). The subjects were exposed to all combinations of posture, frequencies, and amplitudes during the experiments (total parameter combinations: 12 WAVE and 9 Juvent). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Peak-to-peak vibration and transmissibility of vibration were recorded and computed for each accelerometer at the tested locations. RESULTS: Variations in frequency generated the most noticeable changes in propagation characteristics, followed by variations in knee angle and amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: WBV therapy delivered with use of the WAVE platform with a knee angle of 140°, plate frequency of 45 Hz, and amplitude of 1.2 mm met our a priori criteria for the "optimal WBV condition." Future studies should evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the WAVE platform by using these parameters to maintain or augment bone mass among persons with SCI and SLOP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it