Feasibility RCT protocol evaluating a powered-wheelchair training program for older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Powered-wheelchair use improves participation for people with mobility limitations; however, many individuals do not receive powered-wheelchair skills training that meets their learning needs. PURPOSE.: The aim of this work is to evaluate the feasibility of a powered-wheelchair training program for older adults with cognitive impairment, using errorless learning strategies facilitated by shared control technology. METHOD.: A feasibility 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial will recruit 32 older adults in residential care with mild to moderate cognitive impairment who are new powered-wheelchair use. The intervention consists of six or 12 training sessions, facilitated by shared control technology, using errorless learning techniques. Control participants will receive six or 12 training sessions using trial-and-error methods. Feasibility and clinical outcomes data (primary outcome: powered-wheelchair skills) will be collected. IMPLICATIONS.: Errorless learning facilitated by shared control technology may be an alternative to meet the powered-wheelchair learning needs of older adults with cognitive impairments.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.005 |
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".