Functional Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Grasping in Traumatic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this single-site randomized control trial was to assess the short-term and long-term efficacy of functional electrical stimulation (FES) therapy over conventional occupational therapy in improving voluntary hand function in incomplete C4-C7 spinal cord injury individuals. All 22 participants recruited in this randomized control trial received treatment for both the left and right upper extremities. Every participant, irrespective of group allocation, received one dose (60 min per day, 5 days per week for the duration of 8 weeks) of conventional occupational therapy for hand function. Of the 22 participants, 12 individuals received an additional dose of conventional occupational therapy, while the remaining 10 participants received a dose of FES hand therapy. The primary outcome measure was Functional Independence Measure (FIM) self-care subscore. The secondary outcome measures were Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) self-care subscore and Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test (TRI-HFT). The participants who received FES therapy showed significantly greater improvements in hand function at discharge, and were able to maintain their gains at long-term follow-up as assessed using FIM self-care subscore, SCIM self-care subscore, and TRI-HFT. The FES therapy effectively increased independence and thereby improved quality of life of individuals with tetraplegia when compared with conventional occupational therapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".