Health status of regularly physically active persons with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Study design A non-controlled cross-sectional study. Objectives To make a descriptive examination of health status in persons with paraplegia and tetraplegia who exercise regularly according to Canadian guidelines. Settings Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital and the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences. Methods Eighteen persons (men/women = 9/9), aged 41‒72 years with spinal cord injury (SCI), who exercise regularly were included. Post-injury years ranged from 4 to 48 years. Clinical examination of body composition, bone mineral density (BMD), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), diffusion capacity (DLCO), cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max), and self-reported quality of life (QOL) obtained by questionnaire was performed. Lung function results are presented as % predicted and VO2max as absolute values relative to body weight. All results are given as median and range. Results Persons with paraplegia (n = 13) were defined as overweight with fat mass 42% (25‒51). BMD 1.047 g cm−2 (0.885‒1.312) was within normal range. FVC 95% predicted (60‒131), FEV1 90% predicted (61‒119), DLCO 77% predicted (56‒103), and VO2max 16.66 ml kg−1 min−1 (12.15‒25.28) defined good aerobic capacity according to age controlled reference values (18). Persons with tetraplegia (n = 5) were slightly overweight with fat mass 35% (26‒47). BMD 1.122 g cm−2 (1.095‒1.299) was within normal range. FVC 72% predicted (46‒91), FEV1 75% predicted (43‒83), DLCO 67% predicted (56‒84), and VO2max 16.70 ml kg−1 min−1 (9.91‒21.01) defined excellent aerobic capacity according to reference values (18). QOL was ranked as median 7.5 (0‒10 scale). Conclusions Persons with SCI who exercise regularly following the Canadian guidelines responded with rather positive associations for health outcomes. Additional research is needed to strengthen our findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".