Cardiorespiratory responses during arm ergometry, functional electrical stimulation cycling, and two hybrid exercise conditions in spinal cord injured
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
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare peak functional aerobic power (VO2 peak) across four different types of exercise: arm crank ergometry (ACE), functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling, and two hybrid exercise conditions: FES cycling combined with ACE and FES rowing using a newly developed rowing device (ROWSTIM). METHODS: Five participants (C7-T12), four male paraplegics with neurologically complete spinal cord injury (SCI), and one male with neurologically incomplete SCI, underwent a progressive maximal peak oxygen exercise test to ascertain peak physical work capacity during arm cranking, FES cycling, FES cycling combined with arm cranking and FES rowing. ariables were significantly lower for FES cycling versus ACE, FES cycling combined with ACE and FES rowing measures (P < 0.05). However there were no significant differences between ACE, FES cycling combined with ACE and FES rowing. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest that the ROWSTIM is as effective an exercise device or training tool for persons with SCI as ACE or combined FES-cycling and ACE, and more effective than FES-cycling. A larger sample size and further technological developments of the ROWSTIM are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of rowing over other hybrid exercise modalities and ACE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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