Boosting in athletes with high-level spinal cord injury: knowledge, incidence and attitudes of athletes in paralympic sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Autonomic dysreflexia (AD) is unique to individuals with spinal injuries (SCI) at T6 or above and can be voluntarily induced. Although AD improves wheelchair racing performance in some athletes, it also elicits exaggerated blood pressure, which could be dangerous. The International Paralympic Committee considers AD doping and banned its use. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate AD knowledge, incidence and attitudes (KIA) of Paralympians with SCI. METHODS: An existing questionnaire was modified to include questions of AD KIA, validated by three experts and piloted with a small sample. It was administered on-line, mailed to members of a scientific network and distributed during the Beijing Paralympic Games. Fisher Exact test was used to evaluate differences across gender, injury and education. RESULTS: Of 99 participants, 54.5% had previously heard of AD while 39.4% were unaware; 16.7%, all males, had used AD to enhance performance. Participants reported that AD was (1) useful for middle (78.6%) and long distance (71.4%), marathon (64.3%) and wheelchair rugby (64.3%); (2) somewhat dangerous (48.9%), dangerous (21.3%) or very dangerous (25.5%) to health. Results were not influenced by age, injury level or injury duration. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate the need for educational programmes directed towards enhancing the AD knowledge of rehabilitation professionals, coaches and trainers working with SCI individuals.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".