Comparing seated pressures in daily wheelchair and sports equipment and investigating the skin protective effects of padded shorts.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:\nAdaptive sports are promoted for individuals with spinal cord injury to increase overall health and prevent cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, but the potential risk of pressure ulcer development with adaptive equipment (AE) is a concern. Current research has found seated pressures in AE that exceed clinically accepted values but no studies have measured pressure with a padded short to assess for its potential pressure reducing effects.\nObjective: \nOur study sought to evaluate average and peak seating pressure in both static and dynamic sport-specific positions, with and without the presence of three types of over-the-counter padded bicycle shorts, in multiple types of adaptive equipment (AE): Hand cycle, quad rugby, basketball, and mountain hand cycle.\nMethods:\nPart One. Pre/Post test design with subjects as their own control. Eight adults with SCI (C5-T6) were pressure mapped under static and dynamic conditions in their daily use wheelchair (WC) and AE. Three conditions were mapped: Daily WC, AE without bicycle shorts, and AE with shorts. AE included: Hand-cycle, quad rugby, basketball, and mountain hand-cycle.\nPart Two. Static pressure readings in a hand-cycle were taken on 16 able-bodied subjects with and without an impact short and a full-coverage padded short.\nPart three. Single subject with T5 SCI was pressure mapped in static and dynamic conditions with and without the full-coverage padded short in a basketball chair and mountain hand-cycle.\nAverage pressure (AP) and peak pressure (PP) recordings were taken for 60 seconds (400 frames) using the TekScan Pressure Mapping System. For static recordings the participants were instructed to sit still, while for dynamic recordings participants simulated sport or activity specific movements.\nResults:\nPart 1. Significant differences were found between the daily chair and AE for both AP and PP in the static condition (p < 0.05), as well as AP in the dynamic condition (p\nPart 2. The impact short significantly increased static PP and AP (p0.05).\nPart 3. The full-coverage padded short increased AP and PP in the basketball chair, decreased AP in the mountain hand cycle and increased PP in the mountain hand cycle.\nDiscussion: \nPressure differences between daily WC and AE in static conditions suggests that athletes who are not moving or sitting on the sidelines in their AE may be at greater risk of tissue breakdown than athletes who are playing and experiencing pressure-relieving positions during movement. Padded shorts as a method to reduce PP and AP yielded variable results which may have been influenced by type of AE and posture in the AE. Thus seated posture may influence the pressure relieving capabilities of a padded short.\nConclusion: Donning a padded short as a method of skin protection yields highly variable changes in PP and AP and pressure mapping should be performed prior to use in AE by the SCI population.\nWorks Cited: Berthold, J., Dicianno, B.E. & Cooper, R.A. (2013). Pressure mapping to assess seated pressure distributions and the potential risk for skin ulceration in a population of sledge hockey players and control subjects. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 8(5), 387-39http://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2013.769123 Darrah, S.D., Dcianno, B.E., Berthold, J., McCoy, A., Haas, M., & Cooper, R.A. (2016). Measuring static seated pressure distributions and risk for skin pressure ulceration in ice sledge hockey players. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 11(3), 241-246. http://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.921939
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".