How has body image been evaluated among people with lower limb loss? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lower limb loss can result in an altered body image, leading to changes in self-esteem, mental health and quality of life. This scoping review explored how body image has been evaluated among people with lower limb loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five databases (Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, CINHAL, and Nursing and Allied Health Database) were searched from inception until March 19, 2023. Inclusion criteria: 1) people with lower limb loss; 2) evaluated a body image outcome or theme; and 3) a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods design. RESULTS: = 2 prospective cohort), 2 qualitative and 1 mixed methods design studies were included. The definition of body image varied across studies, with 59% of studies not reporting a conceptual or theoretical definition. People with lower limb loss perceived a more negative body image compared to control groups. In prospective cohort studies, changes in body image over time were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: People with lower limb loss report a negative body image when compared to other populations. Definitions and understanding of body image changed overtime and varied among studies which may impact introducing interventions to promote positive body image during rehabilitation and beyond in this population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".