Effectiveness of an Evidence-Based Amputee Rehabilitation Program: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of lower limb amputation (LLA), only a small percentage of people with LLA actually receive physical therapy post amputation and are rehabilitated to their full potential level of function. There is a need for the development of a rehabilitation program that targets impairments and limitations specific to people with LLA. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the Evidence-Based Amputee Rehabilitation program would improve functional mobility of people with unilateral transtibial amputation (TTA) who have already completed physical therapy and prosthetic training. DESIGN: This study was a randomized, wait-list control, single-blinded pilot clinical trial. SETTING: This study researched participants who had received postamputation rehabilitation to varying degrees, either in an inpatient and/or outpatient settings. PARTICIPANTS: The participants in this study included veterans and nonveterans with unilateral TTA due to dysvascular disease and trauma. INTERVENTION: This study included a prescription-based rehabilitation program for people with amputations. MEASUREMENTS: Results were measured with The Amputee Mobility Predictor with (AMPPro) and without a prosthesis (AMPnoPro) and 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) at baseline and at the end of the 8-week intervention. RESULTS: The intervention group improved on the AMPPro scores (36.4 to 41.7), AMPnoro scores (23.2 to 27.1), and 6MWT distance (313.6 to 387.7 m). The effect size for the intervention was very large (1.32). In contrast, the wait-list control group demonstrated no change in AMPPro scores (35.3 to 35.6), AMPnoPro scores (24.7 to 25.0), and 6MWT distance (262.6 m to 268.8 m). LIMITATIONS: The sample size was small. A total 326 potential candidates were screened with 306 unable to meet inclusion criteria or unwilling to participate. CONCLUSION: People with unilateral TTA who received Evidence-Based Amputee Rehabilitation program demonstrated significant improvement in functional mobility, with most participants (66.7%) improved at least 1 K-level (58.3%) and greater than the minimal detectable change (66.7%).
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".