MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052211539 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2013.01.0005

Muscle activation during body weight-supported locomotion while using the ZeroG

2014· article· en· W2052211539 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicepsElectromyographyGaitMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cord injuryHeelGait analysisTibialis anterior musclePhysical therapySpinal cordAnatomySkeletal muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ZeroG provides dynamic body weight support (BWS) using a harness while individuals with mobility impairments (e.g., spinal cord injury) ambulate overground. Muscle activity during locomotion using this device was studied in 13 nondisabled adults (age 23.8 +/- 2.7 yr). Electromyography (EMG) recordings were collected from tibialis anterior (TA), medial gastrocnemius (MG), rectus femoris (RF), and biceps femoris muscles during randomized walking trials at preferred speeds under five levels of BWS (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%). Filtered EMG signals from each trial were normalized to 0% BWS and correlated with gait phases. Muscle activity, averaged across muscles, decreased significantly at heel strike by 33.4% with increasing BWS. Offloading significantly decreased heel strike activity of RF (62.8%), MG (35.5%), and TA (25.9%). Gait cycle completion time increased with BWS primarily because of increased swing phase time. These results summarizing the effect of BWS on muscle activation during ambulation can now be compared with clinical populations using the ZeroG.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.315 · 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