Evaluation of a specific balance and coordination programme for individuals with a traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an aerobic dancing training, designed to reduce postural imbalance and coordination deficits for individuals who had sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI). A two group experimental design was conducted. A control group participated in a traditional muscular training (TMT) programme while participants in the experimental group were assigned to an aerobic dancing, Slide and Step training programme (specific training group (ST)). Participants were evaluated pre- and post-training. Balance was quantified using a force platform and coordination using a Peak Performance system to compare the velocity profiles of a modified Jumping jack test. Results showed that temporal variables were significantly different pre- and post-training for the ST group, but no changes were found in the TMT group. The results of the balance test indicated a significant reduction of postural sway area in the ST group but not in the TMT group. Overall, the combination workout with Step and Slide is more effective in reducing balance and coordination deficits when compared to muscular based training.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".