MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411145038 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.07.25329084

Overground robotic walker use in the home and community: a six-month prospective cohort study

2025· preprint· en· W4411145038 on OpenAlexafffund
Alicia Hilderley, Christa M. Diot, Hua Shen, Sean P. Dukelow, Kelly A. Larkin-Kaiser, Adam Kirton, Elizabeth G. Condliffe

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsCohortProspective cohort studyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Importance Outcomes following long-term use of overground robotic walkers have not been studied, even though children with mobility impairments are using these devices for extended periods. Objective To evaluate the impacts of six months of overground robotic walker use in the home and community. Design Observational cohort study. Setting Home and community. Participants Volunteer sample of participants with mobility impairments who privately obtained an overground robotic walker. 255 device users were contacted, 171 consented to participate. Exposure Six months of participant-initiated overground robotic walker use. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome of functional ability was assessed by parent report using the Gillette Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ). Secondary outcome measures were parent-reported physical activity, positive affect, sleep disturbance, and bowel movement frequency. Questionnaires were sent digitally at baseline (when users received device use training), and then 1-Month, 3-Months and 6-Months later. The device tracked monthly usage, specifically number of steps, minutes of use, average cadence (steps/minute), and the number of times the device was used. Results Median participant age was 6 years (range 1 to 24), 42.1% were female, 70.8% had a diagnosis of cerebral palsy, and most were not independently ambulatory (97.3% of participants who reported function). Adjusted cumulative link mixed models demonstrated a significant main effect of time for FAQ scores, with increased log odds of a higher FAQ score at each time point (ß=0.86, 95% CI [0.25, 1.46], p =0.006). Adjusted repeated measures linear mixed-effects models demonstrated significant main effects of time for secondary outcomes, with improvements in physical activity scores (ß=0.96, 95% CI [0.21, 1.71], p=0.012), sleep disturbance scores (ß=-0.82, 95% CI [-1.61, -0.04], p =0.040), average cadence (steps/minute) (ß=1.86, 95% CI [0.61, 3.11], p =0.004), and also decreases in the number of times the device was used per month (ß=-0.95, 95% CI [-1.63, -0.26], p =0.007). Device usage time and total steps per month did not significantly change over time. Conclusions and Relevance Six months of overground robotic walker use resulted in significant improvements in functional ability and secondary outcomes linked to physical inactivity. Device usage time was consistent over time, suggesting feasibility of long-term home and community use.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207