MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4247184129 · doi:10.2196/preprints.19251

Effects of an Overground Walking Program With a Robotic Exoskeleton on Long-Term Manual Wheelchair Users With a Chronic Spinal Cord Injury: Protocol for a Self-Controlled Interventional Study (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4247184129 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alec Bass, Mylène Aubertin‐Leheudre, Claude Vincent, Antony D. Karelis, Suzanne N. Morin, Michelle McKerral, Cyril Duclos, Dany H. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessSpinal cord injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicineExoskeletonPsychosocialWheelchairPowered exoskeletonSpinal cordComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND In wheelchair users with a chronic spinal cord injury (WUSCI), prolonged nonactive sitting time and reduced physical activity—typically linked to this mode of mobility—contribute to the development or exacerbation of cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and endocrine-metabolic health complications that are often linked to increased risks of chronic pain or psychological morbidity. Limited evidence suggests that engaging in a walking program with a wearable robotic exoskeleton may be a promising physical activity intervention to counter these detrimental health effects. OBJECTIVE This study’s overall goals are as follows: (1) to determine the effects of a 16-week wearable robotic exoskeleton–assisted walking program on organic systems, functional capacities, and multifaceted psychosocial factors and (2) to determine self-reported satisfaction and perspectives with regard to the intervention and the device. METHODS A total of 20 WUSCI, who have had their injuries for more than 18 months, will complete an overground wearable robotic exoskeleton–assisted walking program (34 sessions; 60 min/session) supervised by a physiotherapist over a 16-week period (one to three sessions/week). Data will be collected 1 month prior to the program, at the beginning, and at the end as well as 2 months after completing the program. Assessments will characterize sociodemographic characteristics; anthropometric parameters; sensorimotor impairments; pain; lower extremity range of motion and spasticity; wheelchair abilities; cardiorespiratory fitness; upper extremity strength; bone architecture and mineral density at the femur, tibia, and radius; total and regional body composition; health-related quality of life; and psychological health. Interviews and an online questionnaire will be conducted to measure users’ satisfaction levels and perspectives at the end of the program. Differences across measurement times will be verified using appropriate parametric or nonparametric analyses of variance for repeated measures. RESULTS This study is currently underway with active recruitment in Montréal, Québec, Canada. Results are expected in the spring of 2021. CONCLUSIONS The results from this study will be essential to guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of future evidence-based wearable robotic exoskeleton–assisted walking programs offered in the community, and to initiate a reflection regarding the use of wearable robotic exoskeletons during initial rehabilitation following a spinal cord injury. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03989752; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03989752 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/19251

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.006

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→