Upper limb muscle strength and wheelchair-related abilities following an exoskeleton-assisted walking programme in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To measure the potential effects of an overground exoskeleton-assisted walking programme on upper limb strength and mass, as well as on wheelchair propulsion performances and abilities in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury. DESIGN: Prospective, single-group, pre-post intervention study. PARTICIPANTS: Ten individuals with chronic (≥ 18 months) spinal cord injury who use a wheelchair as their primary mode of locomotion and who had little-to-no motor function in the lower limbs. METHODS: Individuals completed a progressive 16-week exoskeleton-assisted walking programme (34 × 1-h sessions, 1-3 sessions/week). Upper limb muscle strength was measured with dynamometers (isokinetic, Jamar). Upper limb lean mass (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) was used to calculate relative strength. Field tests (20-m wheelchair propulsion, and slalom test) and the Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire determined performances and abilities. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used with the following criteria: p < 0.1, effect size ≥ 0.5, and relative variation > 5%. RESULTS: Only natural velocity during the 20-m wheelchair propulsion test (i.e., fundamental wheelchair ability) changed following the intervention (p = 0.01, effect size = 0.82, relative variation = +14.5%). CONCLUSION: Overall, upper limb muscle function did not significantly and meaningfully change following the exoskeleton-assisted walking programme in this population. Additional research is needed to verify how changes in training volume would affect strength and advanced wheelchair-related abilities and performance, as well as the response in individuals who are deconditioned or novices to wheelchair use (e.g., subacute spinal cord injury).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".