MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482192981 · doi:10.1887/0750303123/b365c117

Adaptive logic networks in rehabilitation of persons with incomplete spinal cord injury

2004· book-chapter· en· W2482192981 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordComputer scienceMedicineNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persons with incomplete spinal cord injury are generally at least partially paralyzed and are often unable to walk. Manually-controlled electrical stimulation has been used to act upon nerves or muscles to cause leg movement so such persons can achieve functional walking. They use crutches or a mobile walker for support, and initiate each stimulus by pressing a button. Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques are now making it possible to automate the process of stimulus-initiation. Supervised training of an automatic system can be based on samples of correct stimulation given by the patient or by a therapist, accompanied by data from sensors indicating the state of the person`s body and its relation to the ground during walking. A major issue is generalization, i.e. whether the result of training can be used for control at a later time or in somewhat different circumstances. As the possibilities grow for increasing the number and variety of sensors on a patient, and for easily implanting more numerous stimulation channels, the need is increasing for powerful learning systems which can automatically develop effective and safe control algorithms. This paper explains the foundations of adaptive logic networks, and illustrates how they have been used to develop an experimental walking prosthesis used in a laboratory setting. Successful generalization has been observed using parameters from training which took place minutes to days earlier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207