Spatial characteristics of reactive stepping among people living with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Compare the spatial characteristics of reactive stepping between individuals with chronic motor incomplete spinal cord injuries (iSCI) and able-bodied (AB) individuals.Design: Cross sectional.Setting: Lyndhurst Centre.Participants: Twelve individuals with iSCI (3 males, 53.6 ± 15.2 years old) and 11 age- and sex-matched AB individuals (3 males, 54.8 ± 14.0 years old).Interventions: The Lean-and-Release test was used to elicit reactive stepping. A horizontal cable, attached at waist height, was released when 8-12% body weight was supported in a forward lean position. Participants underwent up to 10 Lean-and-Release trials in a session. Kinematic and kinetic data were recorded.Outcome measures: The length, width and height of the first reactive step of each trial were calculated. Standard deviation between trials was calculated to represent the variability in step length, width and height within a participant. Among participants with iSCI, correlation coefficients were used to explore the relationship between step length and width variability and (1) Lean-and-Release test behavioral responses, (2) 3-month fall history, and (3) lower extremity strength.Results: Step length (P = 0.94), width (P = 0.52) and height (P = 0.97), normalized for participant height, did not differ between groups. Participants with iSCI showed greater variability in step length (P = 0.02) and width (P = 0.01), but not height (P = 0.32). No correlation was found between step length or width variability and behavioral responses, 3-month fall history, or lower extremity strength.Conclusions: Individuals with iSCI showed increased variability in length and width of reactive stepping compared to AB individuals, which may contribute to their impaired ability to execute single-step reactive responses.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02960178.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".