MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768653534 · doi:10.1111/aor.13052

Functional Electrical Stimulation

2017· editorial· en· W2768653534 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Organs · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional electrical stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cord injuryRowingGaitRehabilitationCerebral palsyMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyStimulationNeuroscienceSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, the International Functional Electrical Stimulation Society (IFESS) celebrated its 20th anniversary. IFESS is promoting research, applications, and understanding of electrical stimulation. This special issue is based on a selection of extended versions of articles that have been presented during the anniversary annual conference in June 2016 in Montpellier/La Grande-Motte, France. They are intended to illustrate the multiple facets of functional electrical stimulation (FES) and recent advances in the domain. Engineers and clinicians demonstrate here the importance and potential of this very active research field. We have also invited Prof. Dejan Popovic and Dr. Thierry Keller to contribute with an article about IFESS history. The clinical applications presented in this issue cover various contexts: post-stroke hemiplegic upper limb therapy (Malesevic et al. 1, Irimia et al. 2), complete spinal cord injuries (SCI) assisted cycling (Fonseca et al. 3, Tefertiller and Gerber 4, Andrews et al. 5), obesity treatment (Lonys et al. 6), Parkinson's disease (PD) gait assistance (Sijobert et al. 7), and cerebral palsy (CP) gait assistance (Rose et al. 8). In their article, Tefertiller and Gerber present a walking rehabilitation program dedicated to SCI patients. This very comprehensive protocol associates electrical stimulation and ergometry to enhance neurological recovery. Rose et al. discuss the use of multichannel electrical stimulation as a very promising assistive technology to help children with spastic CP achieve a more upright and functional gait. Andrews et al. present their long experience of FES-rowing in SCI patients. The article from Malesevic et al., investigates surface motor activation zones using a multi-pad functional electrical stimulation system to produce selective wrist, finger, and thumb extension movements in therapy sessions involving hemiplegic stroke patients. In their article, Fonseca et al. present an approach for cadence tracking and disturbance rejection in FES cycling in complete paraplegic subjects. Sijobert et al. report a new strategy to assist PD gait through somatosensory cueing based on electrical stimulation of the arch foot in PD gait. Irimia et al., introduce a brain-computer interface to monitor movement imagery to real-time control FES and bar feedback during post stroke hemiplegic patients upper limb training. Some articles of this issue are concerned with invasive approaches of FES. Lonys et al. present an in vivo validation of a less invasive procedure to stimulate the stomach with a gastrointestinal stimulator implant to activate the loss of weight in obese patients. Overall the contributions to this special issue demonstrate how versatile FES can act as a beneficial tool for a variety of clinical applications. We are confident that this collection will be interesting for a wide community of researchers and practitioners and hope it will promote awareness for the numerous beneficial options the use of FES in diagnostic and therapeutic applications can provide.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.270 · 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