Effect of service dogs on manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service dogs help people with mobility impairments. They are trained to perform a variety of tasks, such as opening doors, retrieving the telephone, picking up objects, and pulling manual wheelchairs (MWCs). More specifically, using the traction provided by the service dog has physical benefits because MWC users can operate their MWCs with less effort. The objective of this study was to document the effect of a service dog on MWC mobility and user shoulder pain, social participation, and quality of life. Eleven MWC users with spinal cord injury were assessed before and after training with a service dog and 7 mo later. Based on a standardized protocol, all study participants learned how to use the service dog safely and how to move around efficiently in different environments and under different conditions. Results showed that using a service dog increased the distance covered by the MWC users and also significantly decreased shoulder pain and intensity of effort. Using the service dog also produced slight but significant improvements in MWC user skills and social participation and may indicate a trend for improvement in quality of life. More extensive research is needed to precisely identify the effect of service dogs on the long-term management of MWC use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".