The influence of balance confidence on social activity after discharge from prosthetic rehabilitation for first lower limb amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community living individuals with lower limb amputation have low balance confidence but the level of balance confidence in the first six months after discharge from prosthetic rehabilitation is not known. OBJECTIVES: To determine if balance confidence levels differ after discharge from prosthetic rehabilitation and to determine if balance confidence at discharge predicts social activity at three months post-discharge while controlling for important covariates such as walking ability. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. METHODS: Subjects (n = 65) experiencing their first unilateral transfemoral or transtibial amputation were recruited and followed-up one and three months post-discharge. Measures of balance confidence (Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale) and walking ability (L Test) collected at discharge were used to predict social activity (Frenchay Activities Index) at follow-up. RESULTS: Despite a 14-second mean improvement in walking ability the mean balance confidence scores did not change significantly between discharge (71.2/100) and at three-month follow-up (69.4/100). Confidence scores and basic walking ability at discharge were the two strongest predictors of three-month social activity. Multiple regression modelling indicated that balance confidence and walking ability explained 64% of the variance (standardized beta = 0.34 and -0.37 respectively) in social activity (adjusted R(2) = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Balance confidence after discharge from prosthetic rehabilitation for lower limb amputation is low and scores do not improve over the first three months post-discharge despite improvements in walking ability. Discharge balance scores confidence independently predicts three-month social activity scores.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".