Novel application of lower body positive-pressure in the rehabilitation of an individual with multiple lower extremity fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lower extremity fractures, if not treated appropriately, can increase the risk of morbidity. Partial weight-bearing after surgical repair is recommended; however, current methods of partial weight-bearing may cause excessive loads through the lower extremity. A new rehabilitation tool that uses lower body positive-pressure is described, that may allow partial weight-bearing while preventing excessive loads, thereby improving functional outcomes. METHODS: A patient with multiple lower extremity fractures underwent a 6-month rehabilitation programme using bodyweight support technology 3 times per week, post-surgery. RESULTS: The patient experienced a reduction in pain and an improvement in ankle range of motion (p=0.002), walking speed (p>0.05) and physical function (p=0.004), as assessed by the Foot and Ankle Module of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lower Limb Outcomes Assessment Instrument. Training did not appear to affect fracture healing, as was evident on radiograph. The effect of lower body positive-pressure on effusion, which has not previously been reported in the literature, was also investigated. No significant difference in effusion of the foot and ankle when using lower body positive-pressure was found. CONCLUSION: Initial results suggest that this new technology may be a useful rehabilitation tool that allows partial weight-bearing during the treatment of lower extremity 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".