Outcome Measures with COPM of Children using a Wilmington Robotic Exoskeleton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Wilmington Robotic Exoskeleton (WREX) is a body-powered, four degrees of freedom orthosis that allows gravity-minimized movement of the arm at the shoulder and elbow. We sought to measure patient satisfaction and performance with use of the WREX during activities of daily living, play, and at school. Method: Twenty-five families completed a phone interview based on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). These families all had a child, aged 2 to 21years, who had a neuromuscular disorder and who had used the WREX for at least eight months. The parents rated their child’s performance of and satisfaction with important activities both with and without the WREX. The scores were assessed for change between the two conditions. Results: Twenty-four out of the 25 parents reported that their child had greater levels of performance and satisfaction when they were wearing the WREX. The mean change in performance score was 3.61 points, and the mean change in satisfaction score was 4.44 points. Conclusion: Families who have a child diagnosed with a neuromuscular disorder and who uses the WREX perceived improved performance and satisfaction with the WREX during self-chosen meaningful activities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".