MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401680425 · doi:10.1123/mc.2015-0091

The Influence of the Aquatic Environment on Gait Initiation: A Pilot Study

2016· article· en· W2401680425 on OpenAlexafffund
Andresa R. Marinho-Buzelli, Ana Maria Forti Barela, José Ângelo Barela, Melissa Leandro Celestino, Miloš R. Popović, Mary C. Verrier

Bibliographic record

VenueMotor Control · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsKinematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)AnkleImpulse (physics)Aquatic environmentRange of motionGround reaction forceWater resistanceEnvironmental scienceSimulationComputer scienceMedicinePhysical therapyEcologyEngineeringAnatomyBiologyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aquatic therapies are used to restore step initiation in people with locomotor disabilities. However, there is lack of evidence of underlining mechanisms of gait initiation in water. We investigated center of pressure (CoP), vertical and anterior-posterior impulse forces, and kinematics of the first step performed in water in comparison with overground walking. The peaks of anticipatory postural adjustment (APA) and the sections of CoP trajectories were longer in water than on land. Impulse forces were increased in water compared with land. Range of motion (ROM) of ankle joint increased in water while knee joint ROM did not change. We suggest that the aquatic environment may facilitate gait initiation training by allowing a longer step execution with greater stimuli and imposed resistance for the phases of gait initiation.

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)0.000
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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMotor ControlSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207