Functional Mobility in Walking Adult Population With Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: This study aimed to describe lower limbs impairments, balance and activity limitations related to indoor mobility in adult walkers with autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS). Results: Twenty-five participants were recruited with a mean age of 32.2 (±10.4) years with 45.7 % using a walking aid. There is a significant difference between participants with and without a walking aid in terms of lower limbs coordination, balance and mobility. Although participants who walk without a walking aid perform better than the others and they are below predictive or reference values. Despite significant mobility limitations, only mild spasticity and passive range of motion limitations were observed. However, there is a significant difference between unaffected individuals and participants with ARSACS for lower limb muscle cocontraction. Conclusions: Results show a high level of lower limb impairments, balance and mobility limitation in adults’ participants with ARSACS that are still walking, including people not using a walking aid. One of the most original finding is the presence of excessive cocontraction and a relatively mild level of spasticity in the lower limbs muscles. Results of this study better circumscribes the impairments and activities that should be the focus of intervention including rehabilitation in ARSACS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".