Potential of the smart balance master system to assess standing balance in people with incomplete spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the concurrent validity of the Smart Balance Master (SBM) tests in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury. DESIGN: Correlational study. SUBJECTS: A total of 32 individuals with an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale D spinal cord injury able to walk 10 m independently, with or without walking assistive devices. METHODS: Outcome measures obtained from static and dynamic balance tests while standing using the SBM were compared to data obtained from the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (14 items). RESULTS: No difference in performance between paraplegic and tetraplegic subjects was noted in the SBM tests. No ceiling effect was apparent in the SBM tests. The highest levels of association with the BBS was found for the limits of stability test (-0.416 < R < -0.752, p ≤ 0.05). The limits of stability test also correlated significantly with the majority of the other SBM tests and, except for the weight-shifting test, was completed by all but two participants. CONCLUSION: The limits of stability test of the SBM system appears to be useful for assessing dynamic standing-balance ability in spinal cord injury subjects and could potentially be used to complement the BBS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".