Poster (Clinical/Best Practice Implementation) ID 1981325
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Many barriers prevent those with spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) from adhering to recommended exercise guidelines, thus increasing risks of secondary health conditions. Mainstream technology options, such as virtual reality (VR), have the potential to facilitate needed exercise participation. However, further research on VR exercise modalities is needed to determine feasibility, effectiveness and to ultimately guide practice recommendations. Objectives The goal of this pilot feasibility study was to determine whether VR exergaming is non-inferior to the current standard of care (SoC) upper extremity aerobic exercise for individuals with SCI/D. Methods/Overview 25 participants with SCI/D completed 10-minute exercise sessions with either VR or the SoC, and after a rest break, then completed 10 minutes of exercise with the other modality. Primary outcomes of heart rate (HR) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were collected at baseline, 5 minutes into exercise, and at 10 min (end of the exercise session) for each modality. Secondary exploratory measures included a Numeric Pain Rating Scale measured pre- and post- each exercise session, and a post-study likeability survey. Results There were no significant differences in HR or RPE between virtual reality exergaming and the standard of care, and 100% of participants preferred the VR over SoC for the exercise. Conclusions VR exergaming was non-inferior to the SoC for short duration upper extremity exercise in those with SCI/D. Implementing VR for patients with SCI/D should be studied further to observe the longer term effect on cardiovascular health and to determine feasibility and compliance for home use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.833 | 0.645 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".