Timing and dosage of FES cycling early after acute spinal cord injury: A case series report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the progression in parameters of functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling dosage (including duration, velocity, stimulation amplitudes, power output), and the resulting changes in muscle mass early after acute spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Three participants, 24-38 years old, with neurological injury level C4-T4, severity AIS (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale) A-C, started FES cycling 16-20 days post injury while admitted at a level-1 trauma center in Canada, and continued for 8-13 weeks in a rehabilitation hospital. They performed three sessions/week of 15-45 min FES cycling, supine or sitting. FES parameters, cycling performance, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) in thighs and calves were measured every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Progression in power output, but not in session duration, was limited in two participants who experienced stimulation-associated referred pain or apprehension, requiring limitation of stimulation amplitudes for up to 65 days after the start of FES cycling. Participants started with 15 min cycling at 20 RPM with no resistance (0 W), and progressed to 30-45 min at 30 RPM producing 8.8-19.0 W average power/session after 2-3 months. Initially, muscle CSA decreased in all 3 participants (up to 16% after 6 weeks), and recovered later after a variable period of FES cycling (up to 16% at 13.3 weeks). CONCLUSION: Progression of FES cycling in the first 3 months after injury required a highly individualized approach, guided by participant response, rather than standardized increments in stimulation intensity or duration. Changes in muscle CSA did not always correspond with the dose of FES cycling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".