PERFORMANCE TESTING IN PEOPLE WITH LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION: INTERVIEWS WITH PROSTHETISTS, PHYSICAL THERAPISTS, AND PHYSICIANS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
 A variety of performance-based tests are available to assess mobility in people with lower limb amputation (LLA)1. Selection of a specific test is likely to be guided by the clinical value of tasks patients perform; the space and equipment available to administrator the test; and/or the time required to set up, administer, score, and interpret the test results. The aim of this study was to collect information about the clinical value of performance tests, and the space, equipment, and time available to rehabilitation specialists who provide care to people with LLA (i.e., prosthetists, physical therapists (PTs), and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians).
 Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32018/24437
 How to cite: Balkman G, Morgan S, Gaunaurd I, Kristal A, Amtmann D, Gailey R, Hafner B.J. PERFORMANCE TESTING IN PEOPLE WITH LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION: INTERVIEWS WITH PROSTHETISTS, PHYSICAL THERAPISTS, AND PHYSICIANS. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32018 
 Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee. 
 http://www.aopanet.org/
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".