The Relationship Between Strength, Pain, and Community Integration in Wheelchair Users: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the differences between wheelchair users and their matched able-bodied controls in grip strength, pain (as expressed by scores on the McGill Pain Questionnaire [MPQ]), and community integration (as expressed by scores on the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique [CHART]). We also explored the relationships among community integration, pain, strength, and demographic variables. Thirteen wheelchair users and 13 able-bodied participants were matched for gender, age, and activity level. The wheelchair-user group had significantly greater scores on the MPQ and significantly lower scores on the CHART. Step-wise multiple regression analyses revealed that the best predictor for pain was age for the wheelchair-user group and activity for the able-bodied group. The best predictor of the CHART for the wheelchair-user group was grip strength. In conclusion, pain was associated with age for the wheelchair-user group and with activity for the able-bodied group. In addition, grip strength was associated with community integration for the wheelchair-user group.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".