MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321097036 · doi:10.3390/cancers15041250

Safety, Feasibility and Efficacy of Lokomat® and Armeo®Spring Training in Deconditioned Paediatric, Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients

2023· article· en· W4321097036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Morgan Atkinson, Angela Tully, Carol Maher, Christopher Innes-Wong, Ray N. Russo, Michael Osborn

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Adelaide HospitalChannel 7 Children's Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSpring (device)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyTraining (meteorology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Rehabilitation robotics is a field of study which aims to understand and augment rehabilitation through the use of robotics devices. Objective: This proof of concept study aimed to test the safety (no. adverse events, incidence of infection), feasibility (program demand, adherence, participant satisfaction) and efficacy (Peak Oxygen uptake (VO2peak), 6-min walk test, gait speeds, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, quality of life) of Lokomat® and Armeo®Spring training in children and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) during or soon after cancer treatment. Method: This was a 6-week single arm pre-post study. Cancer patients with significant musculoskeletal, neurological, gait and/or upper limb deficiency aged 5 to 25 years were recruited. The rehabilitation program included access to two robotic orthoses: the Lokomat® and/or Armeo®Spring. Robotic devices utilised real-time biofeedback and computer games to engage and guide participants through a repetitive functional range of movement aimed at improving functional deficiencies. Progressive increases in exercise intensity and duration were encouraged. Results: Twentey-eight participants were approached for study; twenty-one consented. Seventy-six percent completed the six-week intervention with an overall adherence of 83%. The mean participant satisfaction score was 8.8/10. Forty-nine adverse events were recorded throughout the course of the study, forty-five grade 1, three grade 2 and one grade 3. No adverse events led to withdrawal from the study. Preliminary efficacy results indicate large beneficial effects on VO2peak (r = 0.63), 10 m comfortable pace walk (r = 0.51) and maximal pace walk (r = 0.60), 6-min walk test (r = 0.60), maximal back and leg strength (r = 0.71), trunk flexibility (r = 0.60), The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) (r = 0.61), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT F) r = 0.53 and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, satisfaction (r = 0.88) and performance scores (r = 0.83), and moderate beneficial effects on Leisure Score Index (LSI) (r = 0.30). Conclusion: Our results suggest that Lokomat® and Armeo®Spring training is safe and feasible for use in children and AYAs who are currently undergoing or have recently completed cancer therapy. A larger controlled trial investigating the efficacy of robotics rehabilitation in this cohort is warranted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207