Functional electrical stimulation cycling in youth with spinal cord injury: A review of intervention studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Preliminary research suggests that functional electrical stimulation cycling (FESC) might be a promising intervention for youth with spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on FESC intervention in youth with SCI. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted during December 2012. Two reviewers independently selected titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Of 40 titles retrieved, six intervention studies met inclusion criteria and were assessed using American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine Levels of Evidence and Conduct Questions for Group Design. RESULTS: The study results were tabulated based on levels of evidence, with outcomes categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. Evidence from the six included studies suggests that FESC is safe for youth with SCI, with no increase in knee/hip injury or hip displacement. Results from one level II randomized controlled trial suggest that a thrice weekly, 6-month FESC program can positively influence VO2 levels when compared with passive cycling, as well as quadriceps strength when compared with electrical stimulation and passive cycling. CONCLUSIONS: FESC demonstrates limited yet encouraging results as a safe modality to mitigate effects of inactivity in youth with SCI. More rigorous research involving a greater number of participants is needed before clinicians can be confident of its effectiveness.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".