A Multicenter Trial of a Footdrop Stimulator Controlled by a Tilt Sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy and acceptance of a footdrop stimulator controlled by a tilt sensor. METHODS: A nonrandomized, test-retest study of 26 subjects with footdrop of more than 1 year's duration, resulting from various central nervous system disorders, was performed in 4 centers for at least 3 months. Speed of walking in a straight line, speed around a figure of 8, and physiological cost index (PCI) were measured with and without the device. Hours/day and steps/day using the device were recorded. RESULTS: All but 2 subjects used the tilt sensor at home, rather than a foot switch. Walking speed increased by 15% after 3 months (n = 26; P < 0.01), 32% after 6 months (n = 16; P < 0.01), and 47% after 12 months (n = 8; P < 0.05), while PCI decreased. The number of steps taken per day of use increased significantly over time, and increased speed was directly correlated with usage. Walking speed also increased with the stimulator off, but to a lesser extent, indicating a training effect. Subject feedback from a questionnaire indicated satisfaction with the stimulator. CONCLUSIONS: Both efficacy and acceptance of the stimulator were good in a population of subjects with chronic footdrop.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".