Abstracts From the IFESS 2025 Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, persons with SCI with lower motor neuron injury would not benefit from standard neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES).Unlike NMES, the use of long pulse width electrical stimulation (LPWS) protocol provides the use of long pulse duration that may extend from 35 to 300 ms.The European project, Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) successfully restored 24% of the trained knee extensor CSA following the application of functional electrical cycling (FES) with LPWS (120-150 ms) at an amplitude of 250 mA for 5 days per week.Denervated muscles in persons with SCI experience severe atrophy with transformation of muscular tissue into fibrous connective tissue and infiltration of intramuscular fat (IMF).Compared to persons with upper motor neuron SCI, skeletal muscle is 40%-60% smaller with excessive IMF that may exceed 15%.This is typically associated with a loss in bone mineral density of the distal femur and proximal tibia.We will discuss (1) effects of lower motor neuron injury on muscle size, cardiometabolic profile, and bone mineral density in persons with SCI.We will also discuss recent findings, (2) regarding utilizing LPWS electrical stimulation exercise to overcome the effects of denervation on the paralyzed muscles in persons with SCI.The presentation will highlight the preliminary finding from a concluded clinical trial about the effects of 12 months of LPWS in conjunction with testosterone treatment on muscle size, body composition, and other cardio-metabolic risk factors compared to standard NMES and testosterone treatment.The preliminary results highlight the need for more studies to determine the most effective stimulation protocol as far as the training frequency and the stimulation parameters necessary to develop muscle hypertrophy and attenuate cardio-metabolic risk factors in this subpopulation with SCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.533 | 0.331 |
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".