MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Importance of Exercise in the Rehabilitation Process after Spinal Cord Injury

2013· review· en· W2034474207 on OpenAlexaff
Chelsea Pelletier, Audrey L. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeconditioningPsychological interventionSpinal cord injuryRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPopulationParalysisSpinal cordNursingPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The profound physical deconditioning that occurs secondary to spinal cord injury (SCI) is due not only to a combination of factors including paralysis and loss of voluntary motor control but also an increased tendency for sedentary behavior. Physical activity trajectories for this population typically indicate decreasing participation with increasing time post injury. This decrease in activity coincides with unfavorable trajectories of health status, including increases in BMI, decreases in lean tissue mass, and decreases in physical capacity. Many of these changes can be favorably altered by exercise interventions. This aspect of recovery emphasizes the need for long term, community-based interventions to encourage sustained participation. With a shift toward increasing reliance on outpatient services for continued care of persons with SCI, the need for community exercise programming and protocols to compliment those services is becoming much more urgent. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current literature on changes in exercise capacity and health and disease risk after spinal cord injury. An examination of previous interventions and proposals for future interventions within the rehabilitation model are proposed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.425 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207