Student Competition (Clinical/Best Practice Implementation) ID 1986706
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objective Exoskeletons are promising tools for motor rehabilitation in spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D); however, optimal therapeutic dose parameters are unknown. This study aimed to identify the dose and dosage of exoskeleton training for functional gait restoration in individuals with SCI/D. Design/Methods A systematic review (inception-03/31/2022) included CINAHL Complete Embase, Emcare Nursing, MedLine and Web of Science databases. Studies with ≥ 5 adults (≥16 years, any level/nature) who underwent exoskeleton-based overground gait rehabilitation and reporting 3 of 4 dose (e.g., session duration and number of sessions) and dosage (e.g., frequency of sessions, intervention duration) parameters, and at least one gait outcome measure were included. Results Of 977 studies, 964 were excluded. With 19 studies remaining, 13 included functional restoration as their therapeutic intent. Of those, 11 reported statistically significant changes and were considered for recommendation. The functional restoration ranged from 10 to 51.5 sessions, 2 to 5 sessions a week, for 3 to 12 weeks, with a duration of 45-90-minutes per session. Altogether, the data suggest that exoskeleton-based functional gait restoration would be best achieved using protocols that encompass 60-minute sessions, 3 times a week, for over 8 weeks (total of 24 sessions). Conclusions Despite the high variability of dose and dosage parameters reported, significant improvements in functional performance were associated with overground exoskeleton use in most studies. The lack of therapeutic standards, however, compromises translation to clinical settings. This review provides evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for functional restoration in individuals with SCI/D to inform future functional restoration training paradigms.
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.671 | 0.259 |
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".