Clinical Walking Tests and Gait Pattern Characterization During 6-Minute Walk Test Using Inertial Sensors: Follow-Up in Individuals With Lower Limb Amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial measurement units and normative values enable clinicians to quantify clinical walking tests and set rehabilitation goals. Objectives of this study were (1) to compare time- and distance-based walking tests in individuals with lower limb amputation (iLLA) and normative values following rehabilitation discharge (T1) and 6 weeks after discharge (T2) and (2) to investigate spatiotemporal and foot kinematic parameters over a 6-minute walk test using inertial measurement units. Twelve iLLA participated in this study. Distance, cadence, stance ratio, loading rate ratio, push-up ratio, path length, and minimum toe clearance were analyzed during 6-minute walk test. Nonparametric repeated-measures analysis of variance tests, Bonferroni corrections, were performed. Time of distance-based walking tests diminished at T2 (P < .02). Compared with normative values, walking performance in iLLA was reduced. Cadence at T2 increased significantly (P = .026). Stance ratio increased in both legs at T2 (P < .05). Push-up ratio tended to decrease at T2 in the amputated leg (P = .0003). Variability of path length and minimum toe clearance at T2 were less than at T1 in the nonamputated leg (P < .05). Spatiotemporal improvement at T2 could be due to prosthesis adaptation in iLLA. The lower performance of the functional walk test compared with normative values could be due to amputation and pain-related fatigue.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".