Ambulation Aid Use During the Rehabilitation of People with Lower Limb Amputations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to describe the progression of ambulation aid use by people with lower limb amputations during their initial rehabilitation. We prospectively studied 37 people with recent lower limb amputations and a mean (SD) age of 68 (13) years. Subjects were evaluated each weekday during gait-training physiotherapy sessions, and the type and order of ambulation aids used during ambulation training were documented. The total number of gait-training sessions that we observed was 605, with a mean (SD) of 16.4 (7.7) sessions per participant and a range of 5-47. Of the 37 participants, 33 (89%) were discharged with prostheses. The mean (SD) number of aids per person was 2.9 (1.0). The percentage of participants who used each aid (presented in the mean order in which they were first used) were 76% parallel bars, 60% four-footed walkers, 81% two-wheeled walkers, 11% two crutches, 8% four-wheeled walkers, 46% two canes, and 14% one cane. People with lower limb amputations generally use a number of ambulation aids in a fairly consistent order as they progress through their initial rehabilitation. These findings have implications for the process of providing ambulation aids and provide a foundation for further study.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".