Balance Confidence Among People With Lower-Limb Amputations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Confidence in a person's balance has been shown to be an important predictor of social activity among people with lower-limb amputations. The purposes of this study were to describe confidence in balance among people with transtibial or transfemoral lower-limb amputations and to compare people whose amputations were due to vascular and nonvascular causes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A survey of a sample of 435 community-dwelling individuals from 2 regional clinics was conducted. The sample consisted of people with unilateral transfemoral (26.7%) and transtibial (73.3%) amputations who lost their limb for vascular (53%) and nonvascular (47%) reasons. The mean age of the primarily male (71%) sample was 62.0 years (SD=15.7). RESULTS: Mean scores, using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale, were 63.8 for the total sample, 54.1 for the subjects with amputations due to vascular reasons, and 74.7 for the subjects with amputations due to nonvascular reasons. Given a maximum possible ABC Scale score of 100, the results suggest that confidence was low. A difference between the subjects with amputations due to vascular reasons and those with amputations due to nonvascular reasons was observed over each item of the ABC Scale. Variables that were statistically related to balance confidence included age, sex, etiology, mobility device use, the need to concentrate while walking, limitations in activities of daily living, depression, and fear of falling. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Balance confidence scores among the study sample were low when compared with values previously reported by other researchers. Confidence was particularly low among individuals who had their amputation for vascular reasons. Balance confidence might be an important area of clinical concern.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".