Comparison of the effects of body-weight-supported treadmill training and tilt-table standing on spasticity in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine the effects of body-weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT) and tilt-table standing (TTS) on clinically assessed and self-reported spasticity, motor neuron excitability, and related constructs in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Random cross-over. METHODS: Seven individuals with chronic SCI and spasticity performed thrice-weekly BWSTT for 4 weeks and thrice-weekly TTS for 4 weeks, separated by a 4-week wash-out. Clinical (Modified Ashworth Scale, Spinal Cord Assessment Tool for Spinal reflexes) and self-report (Spinal Cord Injury Spasticity Evaluation Tool, Penn Spasm Frequency Scale) assessments of spasticity, quality of life (Quality of Life Index Spinal Cord Injury Version - III), functional mobility (FIM Motor Subscale), plus soleus H-reflex were measured at baseline, after the first training session and within 2 days of completing each training condition. RESULTS: In comparison with TTS, a single session of BWSTT had greater beneficial effects for muscle tone (effect size (ES) = 0.69), flexor spasms (ES = 0.57), and the H/M ratio (ES = 0.50). Similarly, flexor spasms (ES = 0.79), clonus (ES = 0.66), and self-reported mobility (ES = 1.27) tended to benefit more from 4 weeks of BWSTT than of TTS. Participation in BWSTT also appeared to be favorable for quality of life (ES = 0.50). In contrast, extensor spasms were reduced to a greater degree with TTS (ES = 0.68 for single session; ES = 1.32 after 4 weeks). CONCLUSION: While both BWSTT and TTS may provide specific benefits with respect to spasticity characteristics, data from this pilot study suggest that BWSTT may result in a broader range of positive outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".