Neck discomfort of wheelchair users: effect of neck position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that wheelchair users experience more discomfort when holding their necks in extended and/or rotated positions than when in their self-selected most comfortable positions (MCPs). METHODS: We studied 20 wheelchair users, first determining their MCPs with the eyes closed. Then, subjects assumed and maintained (for 5 min each) four neck positions in random order: level (L) and elevated (E), both straight ahead of the subject (S) and with the neck rotated (R). We measured neck extension angles (from digital photographs) and neck discomfort (using visual analogue scales [VAS], in %). RESULTS: The mean neck-extension angles were MCP - 2.6 degrees, LS 9.5 degrees, LR 8.1 degrees, ES 23.9 degrees and ER 25.4 degrees (ANOVA p < 0.0001). The mean VAS neck discomfort scores were LS 5.7%, LR 17.4%, ES 24.0% and ER 34.1% (ANOVA p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sustained extension and rotation of the neck, alone or in combination, increase the neck discomfort of wheelchair users. The MCP for most wheelchair users is straight ahead with the neck slightly flexed, about 11 degrees and 27 degrees more flexed, respectively, than when looking at an average-height sitting or standing person. These findings have implications for wheelchair design, the behaviour of clinicians and wheelchair users, and the built environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".