Effect of system tilt and seat-to-backrest angles on load sustained by shoulder during wheelchair propulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined the effect of system tilt angle (STA) and seat-to-backrest angle (SBA) changes on the load sustained by the shoulder during manual wheelchair propulsion. Fourteen elderly participants (mean +/- standard deviation age 68.2 +/- 5.2 years) were recruited. Combinations of three STAs (0 degrees , 5 degrees , and 10 degrees ) and three SBAs (95 degrees , 100 degrees , and 105 degrees ) were randomly tested. The initial position of the wheel axle was held constant with respect to the participant's shoulder position in each condition (horizontal: 4 cm forward of shoulder, vertical: 110 degrees to 120 degrees elbow extension). The shoulder load was estimated by the joint moments. The analysis did not reveal any significant differences between shoulder joint moments (average and peak) for the various STA and SBA combinations. Changing the seat angle while keeping the wheel-axle position constant maintained the shoulder load at the same level. Thus, seat angle can be determined with the goals of user comfort and pressure modulation at the seat interface for alleviating pressure ulcers without increasing risk of overuse shoulder injuries.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".