ESTABLISHING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE COMPONENT TIMED-UP-AND-GO TEST TO DETERMINE BASIC PROSTHETIC MOBILITY IN PEOPLE WITH LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
 Studies suggest that brief bouts of activity consisting of sit-to-stand transitions, gait initiation, turning and negotiation of obstacles, are essential tasks of daily mobility, as well as prosthetic mobility1,2. Using outcome measures deemed reliable for use in the amputee population is ideal3,4. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of a component timed-up-and-go test (cTUG), using a mobile application (App), to evaluate basic prosthetic mobility tasks in people with lower limb amputation (LLA). The cTUG captures time required to perform the subtask components of sit to stand transitions, linear gait, and a 180˚ turn that are requisites of the standard TUG test. It was hypothesized that the cTUG would demonstrate test-retest reliability, differentiate between groups based on anatomical level of amputation, and exhibit convergent validity with other measures of prosthetic mobility and balance.
 Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32036/24452
 How to cite: Clemens S, Gaunaurd I, Lucarevic J, Klute G, Kirk-Sanchez N, Bennett C, Gailey R. ESTABLISHING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE COMPONENT TIMED-UP-AND-GO TEST TO DETERMINE BASIC PROSTHETIC MOBILITY IN PEOPLE WITH LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, ORAL PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32036 
 Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the AOPA 2018 National Assembly Scientific Committee.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".