Stepping in Place (SIP) as a Novel Physical Ability Assessment in Neurorehabilitation: A Wearable Device-based Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The assessment of physical ability is a critical component in developing personalized exercise prescriptions, monitoring disease progression, and evaluating intervention outcomes across various clinical and general populations. This study evaluates how objective physical performance parameters, measured during a stepping in place (SIP) exercise via Ambulosono wearable system, relate to subjective perceptions of fatigue and breathlessness using Borg and Fatigue Scores. Our overall results show that SIP, as a convenient and simple exercise modality, can be used to rank a user’s physical ability level based on both objective and subjective parameters. Furthermore, while the objective walking/gait parameters may have some predictive ability for the such parameter as cadence, they do not appear to significantly predict the subjective fatigue or breathlessness scores, either before or after the activity. This lack of significant relationships suggests that factors other than the measured objective gait metrics may play a more important role in determining subjective experiences of fatigue and breathlessness during the stepping exercise.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".