Effects of training with a neuro-mechano stimulator rehabilitation bicycle on functional recovery and paired-reflex depression of the soleus in individuals with incomplete paralysis: a proof-of-principle study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The present study describes the training effects of a novel motorized bicycle-like device for individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury.Methods: Participants were five individuals with motor incomplete spinal cord injury (56 ± 7 years). Four of five participants received two 30-min sessions of training: one with, and one without, mechanical stimulation on the plantar surface of the foot; soleus paired H-reflex depression was examined before and after each session. Three of five participants received 24 sessions of 30-min of training (long-training). Following the long-training, balance, walking and spasticity improvements were assessed using validated clinical outcome measures, in addition to the H-reflex assessment.Results: One cycling session with mechanical stimulation yielded 14% and 32% more reflex depression in participants with moderate spasticity (n = 2/4). The same trend was not observed in non-spastic participants (n = 2/4). All participants who participated in the long-training had spasticity and showed reduced spasticity, improved walking speed, endurance and balance.Conclusions: Overall, participants with spasticity showed increased soleus H-reflex suppression after one training session with mechanical stimulation and reduced spasticity scores after long training. We interpret this as evidence that the training influenced both presynaptic and postsynaptic inhibitory mechanisms acting on soleus motoneurons. Therefore, this training has the potential to be a non-invasive complementary therapy to reduce spasticity after incomplete spinal cord injury.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02554058.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".