Can body weight supported treadmill training increase bone mass and reverse muscle atrophy in individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the impact of 12 months of body weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) on muscle and bone in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Fourteen individuals who sustained an incomplete SCI at least 12 months before the study were recruited to participate in BWSTT 3 times/week for a total of 144 sessions. Thirteen individuals completed the study. The average age of subjects was 29 y, average time post-injury was 7.70 y (range: 1-24 y). Areal bone densities of the proximal and distal femur, proximal tibia, spine, and whole body were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), volumetric bone density, and bone geometry at mid-femur and proximal tibia were measured using computed tomography. Serum osteocalcin and urinary deoxypyridinoline were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of training. All other measures were made before and after training. Participants experienced significant increases in whole-body lean mass, from 45.9 +/- 8.7 kg to 47.8 +/- 8.9 kg (mean +/- SD; p < 0.003). Muscle CSAs increased by an average of 4.9% and 8.2% at the thigh and lower leg sites, respectively. No significant changes occurred in bone density or bone geometry at any site, or in bone biochemical markers. Whole-body bone density exhibited a small but statistically significant decrease (p < 0.006). BWSTT may therefore be a promising intervention for increasing muscle mass. Although 12 months of BWSTT did not increase bone density in individuals with chronic incomplete SCI, it did not appear to decrease bone density at fracture-prone sites.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".