Influence of different rehabilitation therapy models on patient outcomes: Hand function therapy in individuals with incomplete SCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the benefits of single (COT1) versus double (COT2) dose of conventional occupational therapy (COT) in improving voluntary hand function in individuals with incomplete, sub-acute C3-C7 spinal cord injury (SCI). The secondary objective was to compare these two interventions versus functional electrical stimulation therapy plus COT (FES + COT). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. Setting Inpatient spinal cord rehabilitation center, Toronto. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with traumatic incomplete sub-acute SCI. INTERVENTIONS: Data from Phases I and II (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00221117) randomized control trials were pooled together for the purpose of this study. Participants in the COT1 group received 45 hours of therapy, the COT2 group received 80 hours of therapy, and the FES + COT group received 40 hours of COT therapy +40 hours of FES therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: We analyzed the functional independence measure (FIM) and the spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) self-care sub-scores. Results The mean change scores on the FIM self-care sub-score for the COT1, COT2, and FES + COT groups were 12.8, 10, and 20.1 points, respectively. Similarly, the mean change scores on the SCIM self-care sub-score for the COT1, COT2, and FES + COT groups were, 2.6, 3.16, and 10.2 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Increased rehabilitation intensity alone may not always be beneficial. The type of intervention plays a significant role in determining functional changes. In this instance, receiving one (COT1) or two (COT2) doses of COT resulted in similar outcomes, however, FES + COT therapy yielded much better outcomes compared to COT1 and COT2 interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".