MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2169026974 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v4n5p30

Assessing Tetraplegic Patients' Neuro-Muscular Adaptations to a Six-Week Physiotherapeutic Programme

2012· article· en· W2169026974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kayode Israel Oke, Oluwaseun S. Kubeyinje, Elias O. Agwubike

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryPhysical therapyRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTetraplegiaMultidisciplinary teamMultidisciplinary approachActivities of daily livingPsychological interventionSpinal cordNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord injury is a life-transforming condition of sudden onset that can have devastating consequences. A multidisciplinary, functional goal-oriented programme is required to enable the tetraplegic patient live as fully and independently life as possible. Physiotherapy is a very important part of the multidisciplinary team required to prevent many of the immobilization complications that may result in serious functional limitations, reduce overall morbidity and achieve well patterned recovery. This study therefore highlights the neuromuscular adaptations of tetraplegic patients to physiotherapy over a period of six weeks. Fifteen patients participated in this study and the results showed that even though changes in the musculoskeletal parameters are inevitable in tetraplegics, the extent/degree of reduction of these parameters was grossly minimized in the studied subjects through the administration of physiotherapeutic measures. However, further research using a large sample size will be required to evaluate the physiologic adaptations of the neuromuscular system to the physiotherapy interventions among patients with spinal cord injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→