MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024386689 · doi:10.1177/0008417420925995

Adaptive Eating Device: Performance and Satisfaction of a Person with Parkinson’s Disease

2020· article· en· W3024386689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandra Cavalcanti, Maíra Ferreira do Amaral, Fabiana Caetano Martins Silva e Dutra, Luísa A. Licursi, Zilda de Castro Silveira

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParkinson's diseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyDiseaseMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND.: Individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) can experience motor impairments related to their hand-use that restrict participation in daily activities. Feeding is one activity impacted by this health condition. The use of adapted utensils can improve performance and independence in this activity. PURPOSE.: To investigate if a locally designed and made eating-adaptive device helps a person with PD to improve their feeding performance. METHOD.: Single-case ABC-type experimental design. Performance and satisfaction of a 60-year-old man with PD were assessed during feeding tasks in 70 sequential days in three phases. Celeration Line, Two-Standard Deviation Band, and Visual Analysis were the methods used for data analysis. FINDINGS.: Performance and satisfaction increased significantly after the introduction of the adaptive eating device. The addition of weight also contributed to the increase in the participant's performance. IMPLICATIONS.: Adaptive eating device with low production costs and possibility of customized adjustments improves performance of people with PD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207