Comparative evaluation of electric wheelchair manoeuvrability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether manoeuvrability varied between electric wheelchairs. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, repeated measures design. SUBJECTS: Twelve wheelchair users. METHODS: Three different electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (Invacare Storm 3, Ottobock B500, and Meyra Champ) intended for use by patients with severe impairments were tested over an indoor and an outdoor circuit. Points were assigned when the users touched the circuit boundaries or failed to pass obstacles. The users completed the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire (QUEST). RESULTS: Performance was significantly worse with Ottobock B500 compared with the other 2 wheelchairs on the indoor test (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05 for both comparisons) and compared with Invacare Storm on the outdoor test (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05). The mean 6-item QUEST score, effectiveness, and simplicity of use were significantly worse for Ottobock B500 than for the other 2 wheelchairs (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Differences in manoeuvrability exist between commercially available electric wheelchairs belonging to the same category. Driving tests and QUEST provide complementary and concordant information.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".