Intensive Balance Training for Adults With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injuries: Protocol for an Assessor-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impaired reactive balance control can lead to increased falls in people with neurological impairments. Perturbation-based balance training (PBT), which involves repetitive exposure to destabilizing external perturbations, improves the ability to take reactive steps in older adults and individuals who have had a stroke. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to investigate whether PBT or conventional intensive balance training (CIBT) results in greater improvements in reactive stepping ability in individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). DESIGN: The design consists of an assessor-blind randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of 2 balance training programs (PBT and CIBT) matched for training duration (thrice weekly for 8 weeks). SETTING: A tertiary spinal cord injury rehabilitation center is used as the setting. PARTICIPANTS: Participants include 24 adults with iSCI classified as a C or D on the American Spinal Association Impairment Scale, who are able to stand independently and exhibit moderate trunk control. INTERVENTION: Both PBT and CIBT involve 24 sessions, each 1 hour long, of individualized static and dynamic balance tasks. However, PBT includes external, unexpected balance perturbations provided manually by the trainer at a frequency of roughly 1 per training minute. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome is the ability to recover balance using a single step during the Lean-and-Release test, a novel method of assessing reactive balance. Secondary outcomes include a number of clinical balance and gait assessments, and the number of falls experienced in a 6-month follow-up period. Semi-structured interviews are conducted 3 months after training completion to gain insight into the participants' perceptions of the impact of the interventions. LIMITATIONS: A control group receiving "standard care" for balance training is not included. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide physical therapists with insight into the efficacy of 2 forms of balance training for individuals with iSCI.
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 | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.010 |
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".