Upper Extremity Kinematics and Kinetics During the Performance of a Stationary Wheelie in Manual Wheelchair Users With a Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No comprehensive biomechanical study has documented upper extremity (U/E) kinematics and kinetics during the performance of wheelchair wheelies among manual wheelchair users (MWUs). The aim of this study was to describe movement strategies (kinematics), mechanical loads (kinetics), and power at the nondominant U/E joints during a wheelie among MWUs with spinal cord injury (SCI). During a laboratory assessment, 16 MWUs with SCI completed four wheelie trials on a rigid surface. Each participant's wheelchair was equipped with instrumented wheels to record handrim kinetics, while U/E and wheelchair kinematics were recorded with a 3D motion analysis system. The greatest mean and peak total net joint moments were generated by the shoulder flexors (mean = 7.2 ± 3.5 N·m; peak = 20.7 ± 12.9 N·m) and internal rotators (mean = 3.8 ± 2.2 N·m; peak = 11.4 ± 10.9 N·m) as well as by the elbow flexors (mean = 5.5 ± 2.5 N·m; peak = 14.1 ± 7.6 N·m) during the performance of wheelies. Shoulder flexor and internal rotator efforts predominantly generate the effort needed to lift the front wheels of the wheelchair, whereas the elbow flexor muscles control these shoulder efforts to reach a state of balance. In combination with a task-specific training program that remains essential to properly learn how to control wheelies among MWUs with SCI, rehabilitation professionals should also propose a shoulder flexor, internal rotator, and elbow flexor strengthening program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".