Postural control imbalance in individuals with a minor lower extremity amputation: a scoping review protocol.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p>Introduction Lower extremity amputations (LEA) impact the quality of life and physical abilities and increase the risk of developing secondary health complications. Current literature predominantly focuses on major LEA, leaving a gap in understanding biomechanics related to balance and postural control in minor LEA. The shifts towards increased rates of minor LEA, due to improved quality of care and patient management, highlights the need for a focused exploration of postural control deficits in this population. The scoping review will address this gap in the literature. Objectives The purpose of the review is to synthesize current research on postural control deficits following a minor foot amputation, focusing on any resections through or distal to the ankle joint, and to evaluate interventions aimed at improving balance in affected individuals. Inclusion criteria The review will encompass individuals of all ages who underwent a minor foot amputation, including various levels and etiologies. It will focus on quantitative data related to standing posture, ability to perform self-balanced activities of daily living, and external aids or treatments to improve postural control. The outcomes will include modifications in the sensation of balance, fall predictors, and biomechanical changes in postural control. Methods A preliminary search of MEDLINE (PubMed) was conducted to develop a full search strategy aimed at compiling all existing scientific articles on postural control and balance in individuals with a minor LEA. A comprehensive search will be performed across multiple databases and grey literature. Two reviewers will independently extract the data. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess risk and quality. Discussion By emphasizing the understudied aspects of postural control imbalances induced by minor LEA, the review will highlight potential areas for therapeutic intervention and contribute to a better understanding of rehabilitation for those affected.</ns3:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".