MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136656153 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2006.870502

Accessing the influence of repositioning on the pelvis' 3-D orientation in wheelchair users

2006· article· en· W2136656153 on OpenAlexaff
Nadine Lalonde, J. Dansereau, P. Pauget, P. Cinquin, Rachid Aïssaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieurePolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelvisSupine positionOrientation (vector space)Pelvic tiltTilt (camera)Rotation (mathematics)Position (finance)AnatomyWheelchairMedicineGeologyComputer scienceComputer visionGeometryMathematicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at evaluating the effects of mechanical repositioning, obtained by the increase in seat-to-back (STB) and system tilt angles, on the position of the pelvis with spinal-cord injured subjects seated in a wheelchair. The noninvasive method used combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of the whole pelvis obtained in a supine posture and ultrasound images of the pelvic iliac crests obtained in four seating positions. The matching of the two image data sets enabled the location of fourteen pelvic landmarks in the seated positions. From these landmarks, the pelvic tilt, obliquity, and transverse rotation, and the three-dimensional (3-D) motion of the pelvis were calculated. Results showed that the increase in STB angle is not equal to the calculated increase in pelvic tilt and that the pelvis rotated posteriorly, moved forward and downwards. An increase in the system tilt moved the pelvis rearwards and downwards, which counter-balanced the movement seen with the increase in STB. At the return to the first position, no significant changes were observed in the pelvis' position and orientation compared to the initial posture. Results also demonstrated the importance in calculating the total 3-D rotations and translations to characterize adequately the pelvic movement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207