Comparison of multidirectional seated postural stability between individuals with spinal cord injury and able-bodied individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare multidirectional seated postural stability between individuals with spinal cord injury and able-bodied- individuals and to evaluate the impact of abdominal and low back muscle paralysis on multidirectional seated stability. DESIGN: Case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen individuals with complete or incomplete spinal cord injury affecting various vertebral levels participated in this study and were gender-matched with 15 able-bodied individuals. METHODS: Participants were instructed to lean as far as possible in 8 directions, set apart by 45° intervals, while seated on an instrumented chair with their feet placed on force plates. Eight direction-specific stability indices and a global stability index were calculated. RESULTS: The global stability index and all direction-specific indices, except in the anterior and posterior directions, were lower in individuals with spinal cord injury than in able-bodied individuals. However, the individuals with spinal cord injury who had partial or full control of their abdominal and lower trunk muscles obtained a similar global stability index and similar direction-specific indices compared to the able-bodied individuals. CONCLUSION: Multidirectional seated postural stability is reduced in individuals with SCI who have paralysis of the abdominal and lower back muscles in comparison to able-bodied individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".