MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773035195 · doi:10.4081/ejtm.2017.7219

Comparison of strategies and performance of functional electrical stimulation cycling in spinal cord injury pilots for competition in the first ever CYBATHLON

2017· article· en· W2773035195 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Coste, Vance Bergeron, Rik Berkelmans, Emerson Fachin‐Martins, Ché Fornusek, Jetsada Arnin, Kenneth J. Hunt, Raymond Kai‐Yu Tong, Ronald J. Triolo, Peter Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Translational Myology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsNickel Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional electrical stimulationRowingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cord injuryCyclingRehabilitationComputer scienceMedicinePhysical therapyStimulationNeuroscienceSpinal cordPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) can elicit muscular contraction and restore motor function in paralyzed limbs. FES is a rehabilitation technique applied to various sensorimotor deficiencies and in different functional situations, e.g. grasping, walking, standing, transfer, cycling and rowing. FES can be combined with mechanical devices. FES-assisted cycling is mainly used in clinical environments for training sessions on cycle ergometers, but it has also been adapted for mobile devices, usually tricycles. In October 2016, twelve teams participated in the CYBATHLON competition in the FES-cycling discipline for persons with motor-complete spinal cord injury. It was the first event of this kind and a wide variety of strategies, techniques and designs were employed by the different teams in the competition. The approaches of the teams are detailed in this special issue. We hope that the knowledge contained herein, together with recent positive results of FES for denervated degenerating muscles, will provide a solid basis to encourage improvements in FES equipment and open new opportunities for many patients in need of safe and effective FES management. We hope to see further developments and/or the benefit of new training strategies at future FES competitions, e.g. at the Cybathlon 2020 (www.cybathlon.ethz.ch).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Translational MyologySame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207