Assessing advanced locomotor recovery after total hip arthroplasty with the timed stair test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess advanced locomotor performance with the timed stair test (TST) and to determine if the level of performance of a group of women one year after hip replacement changed with the functional demands of the tasks. DESIGN: Comparison of the performance of two groups of women. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: A convenient sample including 18 women who had had a total hip replacement 11 months earlier (patients) and 15 healthy age-matched women (comparison group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three tests were administered: the 10-m walk test, the unloaded TST and the loaded TST (10 kg). The duration of each test was recorded and transformed into speed and the level of performance was assessed by calculating percentage deficit using corresponding values from the comparison group. The TST is made of four subtasks: (1) standing up and walking, (2) ascending stairs, (3) turning and descending stairs, (4) walking back, turning and sitting down. RESULTS: Significant differences in performance were found for all three tests with the patients showing a slower performance. The percentage deficits increased significantly from the less difficult (walking: 18%) to the more difficult conditions (unloaded TST: 23% and loaded TST: 28%), with the greatest deficits found during stair descent. Strong correlations were also found between walking deficits and TST deficits (loaded: r = 0.82; unloaded: r = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: By combining mobility, walking and stair activities, the TST can be used to assess various components of advanced locomotor performance. The progressive level of difficulty of the TST subtasks as well as the addition of a load make it useful to detect subtle locomotor disabilities.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".