Training unsupported sitting does not improve ability to sit in people with recently acquired paraplegia: a randomised trial
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".