Comparison of blind children's gait pre/post introduction of a wearable assistive safety device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims/Purpose: Infants with congenital mobility visual impairment or blindness (MVI/B) walking delays are due to exposure and insufficient contact with their environment. Assistive safety devices provide contact and protection. [1,2] Our study measured foot motility/gait in pediatric patients with a MVI/B to quantify the benefits of wearing a Pediatric Belt Cane. Methods: Videos of fifty pediatric patients (Mean age = 26 mos, SD = 10.8) with a MVI/B Before and After were analyzed using the MediaPipe platform to perform gait analysis. Subsequent analyses included linear regression analysis and data smoothing to calculate metrics for foot mobility, approximate speed, step frequency, and estimated step lengths. T‐test analysis was performed to calculate the significance of differences in gait analyses. Results: Patients utilizing Pediatric Belt Canes showed significant percent increase in foot mobility (p < .05), percent improvement in approximate speed (p < .05), percent reduction in step frequency (p < .05), and percent increase in step length (p < .05). Conclusions: Pediatric Belt Canes lead to marked, quantifiable improvements in walking for children with a MVI/B, supporting the conclusion that assistive safety devices are a medical necessity in the care and management of all children with a MVI/B (e.g., lack visual preview). Further work increasing the choice of assistive devices is warranted for sport, blind children with motor impairments, etc. References: 1. Chong, P., Enzenauer, R., Ambrose‐Zaken, G. Comparative video gait analysis of assistance for cortically visually impaired Children. International Council of Ophthalmology, WOC, August 17, 2024, Vancouver. 2. Chong, P. Comparative video gait analysis of assistance for mobility visually impaired Children. AAPOS, April 8, 2024, Austin, TX.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".