Are wheelchair-skills assessment and training relevant for long-standing wheelchair users? Two case reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We present two case reports that shed light on the question of whether routine periodic wheelchair-skills assessment and training are relevant for long-standing wheelchair users. CASE 1: A 60-year-old man with a 15-year history of T12 complete paraplegia sustained an intertrochanteric fracture of his femur due to a tip-over accident that occurred 2 days after a follow-up clinic visit at which no limitations in wheelchair-skill performance were identified. If a procedure had been in place to identify and correct his wheelchair-skill deficiencies, this injury might have been prevented. CASE 2: A 34-year-old woman with spina bifida, whose wheelchair use had gradually increased, came to our attention during the provision of a new wheelchair. She was able to significantly improve her wheelchair abilities through training. The newly learned skills enhanced her community participation. CONCLUSIONS: These cases suggest that, even in long-standing wheelchair users, wheelchair skills should be routinely assessed as part of the periodic functional assessment and, when the skill level is determined to be less than appropriate for that person, formal training should be offered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".