Determinants of sit-to-stand tasks in individuals with hemiparesis post stroke: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The ability to rise from a chair to reach a standing position is impaired after stroke. This paper aims to review for the first time the factors that impact the ability to rise from a chair and identify recommendations for post-stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: In order to analyse relevant scientific publications (French and English), the search terms "stroke", "rehabilitation" and "sit-to-stand" (STS and its variations) were used. The initial literature search identified 122 titles and abstracts for full review and 46 were retained because both the junior and senior researchers agreed that they were aligned with the objectives of this review. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: During STS, most individuals with hemiparesis able to stand independently presented several changes such as lateral deviation of the trunk towards the unaffected side (ipsilesional side), asymmetrical weight bearing (WB) and asymmetry of knee moment forces. Interestingly, the WB asymmetry was observed even before seat-off, when subjects with hemiparesis still had their thighs in contact with the chair suggesting a planned strategy. Among other interesting results, the time to execute the STS was longer than in controls and influenced by the sensorimotor deficits. A greater risk of falling was observed with a need for more time to stabilize the body during STS and especially during the extension phase. Some rehabilitation interventions may be effective in improving STS duration, WB symmetry and the ability to stand independently with repeated practice (mentally or physically) of STS tasks. However, more research is essential to further investigate effects of specific training protocols and pursue better understanding of this complex and demanding task, particularly for stroke patients who need assistance during this transfer.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".