Toilet Grab-Bar Preference and Center of Pressure Deviation During Toilet Transfers in Healthy Seniors, Seniors With Hip Replacements, and Seniors Having Suffered a Stroke
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Multiple toilet grab-bar configurations are required by people with a diverse spectrum of disability. The study purpose was to determine toilet grab-bar preference of healthy seniors, seniors with a hip replacement, and seniors post-stroke, and to determine the effect of each configuration on centre of pressure (COP) displacement during toilet transfers. METHODS: 14 healthy seniors, 7 ambulatory seniors with a hip replacement, and 8 ambulatory seniors post-stroke participated in the study. Toilet transfers were performed with no bars (NB), commode (C), two vertical bars (2VB), one vertical bar (1VB), a horizontal bar (H), two swing-away bars (S) and a diagonal bar (D). COP was measured using pressure sensitive floor mats. Participants rated the safety, ease of use, helpfulness, comfort and preference for instalment. RESULTS: 2VB was most preferred and had the smallest COP deviation. Least preferred was H and NB. C caused largest COP displacement but had favourable ratings. DISCUSSION: The preference and safety of the 2VB should be considered in the design of accessible toilets and in accessibility construction guidelines. However these results need to be verified in non-ambulatory populations. C is frequently prescribed, but generates large COP deviation, suggesting it may present an increased risk of falls.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it