MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise Therapy After Spinal Cord Injury: The Effects on Heath and Function

2009· review· en· W2087763711 on OpenAlexaff
David S. Ditor, Audrey L. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPopulationDiseaseRehabilitationHealth benefitsAerobic exerciseTreadmillSpinal cordEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) are susceptible to an array of secondary health complications. Some of these health concerns are attributable to the SCI per se, but many are secondary to the resulting immobility. For example, the incidence of pressure ulcers, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease are greatly increased in this population. Despite the need for exercise training as a means to reverse these health risks, individuals with SCI have traditionally been one of the most inactive segments of society. Physical activity programs and information about how activity can promote health are two of the services most desired but least available to people with SCI. Recently, efforts have been made to increase exercise options for individuals with SCI and to study the health benefits of exercise in this population. Accessible resistance and aerobic exercise training, functional electrically stimulated exercise, and body weight-supported treadmill training have all shown promise as ways to reverse some of the physiological consequences of SCI. Future research will determine whether these physiological adaptations actually translate to a long-term reduction in disease and mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207