Use of Different Bath Grab Bar Configurations Following a Balance Perturbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although commonly prescribed, little research exists on bath grab bars. This study examined the use of bath grab bars following an experimentally induced balance perturbation, the influence of the task on grab bar use, and the influence of balance loss on acceptance of grab bars. A mixed design documented the use of four different grab bar configurations: (a) no bars, (b) vertical/horizontal combination, (c) L-shaped bar, and (d) vertical/angled combination following balance loss. Eighty adults were randomly assigned to three groups. Each group tried the "no bar" configuration and one of the other grab bar configurations. In 25% of the trials for each configuration, balance perturbation was induced. Older adults used grab bars 59.4% of time to regain balance, compared to 13.6% for younger adults. The vertical bar on the side wall was favored by both groups of participants during both bathtub entry and exit. To promote safety in the home, existing building codes must be revised to recommend minimally a vertical grab bar on the side wall. Additional bars may be needed to ensure safety during stand-to-sit and sit-to-stand phases of bath transfers. Initiatives must be taken to decrease the prejudice associated with grab bars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".