MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171988783 · doi:10.1177/1545968306297861

Assessment of Walking Speed and Distance in Subjects With an Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury

2007· article· en· W2171988783 on OpenAlexaff
Hubertus J. A. van Hedel, Volker Dietz, Armin Curt

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstituto de Sistemas Complejos de Ingeniería
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryAmbulatoryMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPreferred walking speedSpinal cordPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 10-meter walk test and 6-minute walk test are increasingly used to evaluate the recovery of walking in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. So far, there is no evidence whether the application of different walking distances provides complementary information about ambulatory capacity in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. Studies about testing preferred and maximum speeds in subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combined testing of short and long distances as well as preferred and maximum speeds provides additional information about walking capacity in subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury. METHODS: Depending on the objective, the subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury and age-matched control subjects had to perform the 10-meter walk test or 6-minute walk test at preferred and/or maximum walking speed. RESULTS: During recovery, the preferred walking speed increased but did not differ when assessed during short or long distances in 51 subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury at 1, 3, and 6 months after injury (mean and SD, 6-minute walk test: 0.37 +/- 0.52, 0.87 +/- 0.56, and 1.14 +/- 0.52 ms( -1); 10-meter walk test: 0.40 +/- 0.53, 0.88 +/- 0.51, and 1.12 +/- 0.51 ms(-1), respectively). In 18 subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury, both preferred and maximum walking speeds assessed with the 10-meter walk test predicted the walking speeds of the 6-minute walk test well. Subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury prefer to walk closer to their maximum walking speed (74% +/- 10%) compared to control subjects (59% +/- 8%). CONCLUSIONS: The velocity used for the 6-minute walking distance and the 10-meter walking speed provides comparable information in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury who can perform both tests. However, tests of the preferred and maximum walking speed add information about walking capacity. Due to the easier applicability of the 10-meter walk test in the clinical setting, the authors suggest performing this test at the preferred and maximum speeds for the assessment of walking capacity by 1 month after incomplete 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations108
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurorehabilitation and neural repairSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207