Training unsupported sitting does not improve ability to sit in people with recently acquired paraplegia: a randomised trial
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
QUESTION: Do people with recently acquired paraplegia benefit from a six-week motor retraining program aimed at improving their ability to sit unsupported? DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-totreat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 32 people with recently acquired paraplegia and limited ability to sit unsupported. INTERVENTION: All participants undertook standard inpatient rehabilitation over a six-week period. Experimental participants received three additional 30-minute sessions per week of motor retraining directed at improving their ability to sit unsupported. OUTCOME MEASURES: The three primary outcomes were the Maximal Lean Test, Maximal Sideward Reach Test, and the Performance Item of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The secondary outcomes were the Satisfaction Item of the COPM, Participants' Impressions of Change, Clinicians' Impressions of Change, the T-shirt Test, and the Spinal Cord Injury Falls Concern Scale. RESULTS: The mean between-group differences for the Maximal Lean Test, Maximal Sideward Reach Test and the Performance Item of the COPM were -20 mm (95% CI -64 to 24), 5% arm length (95% CI -3 to 13) and 0.5 points (95% CI -0.5 to 1.5), respectively. The secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: People with recently acquired paraplegia do not benefit from a six-week motor retraining program directed specifically at improving their ability to sit unsupported. Their ability to sit unsupported does, however, improve over time, suggesting that the practice of activities of daily living has important carry-over effects on unsupported sitting, rendering additional training redundant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12608000464369.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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