The Effect of Perturbation-Based Balance Training and Conventional Intensive Balance Training on Reactive Stepping Ability in Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury or Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Impaired balance leads to falls in individuals with motor incomplete spinal cord injury or disease (iSCI/D). Reactive stepping is a strategy used to prevent falls and Perturbation-based Balance Training (PBT) can improve this ability. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if PBT results in greater improvements in reactive stepping ability than frequency-matched Conventional Intensive Balance Training (CIBT) in adults with iSCI/D. Design: Randomized clinical trial. Setting: Tertiary SCI/D rehabilitation center. Participants: Twenty-one adults with chronic (>1 year) iSCI/D were randomized. Due to one drop out 20 participants completed the study. Methods: Participants were randomly allocated to complete either PBT or CIBT three times per week for 8 weeks. Both programs included challenging static and dynamic balance tasks, but the PBT group also experienced manual external balance perturbations. Main Outcome Measures: Assessments of reactive stepping ability using the Lean-and-Release test were completed at baseline, and after 4 and 8 weeks of training, and 3 and 6 months after training completion. A blinded assessor evaluated secondary outcomes. Results: Twenty-five participants were screened and 21 consented; one withdrew. Ten PBT and 10 CIBT participants were included in analyses. Across all participants there were improvements in reactive stepping ability (p = 0.049), with retention of improvements at follow up assessments. There were no differences in reactive stepping ability between groups [median (interquartile range): PBT 0.08 (0.68); CIBT 0.00 (0.22)]. One participant in the PBT group experienced a non-injurious fall during training. Conclusions: Balance training is beneficial for individuals with iSCI/D, but the addition of manual perturbations (i.e., PBT) did not prove advantageous for performance on a measure of reactive stepping ability. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT02960178.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".