Strength Training in Individuals with Stroke
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper reviews the mechanisms underlying the inability to generate force in individuals with stroke and summarizes the effects of strength training in these individuals. In addition, a systematic review of studies that have incorporated progressive strengthening interventions in individuals with stroke is presented. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Central (e.g., motor recruitment) and peripheral (e.g., muscle atrophy) sources may alter muscle strength in individuals with stroke and further investigations are needed to partition and quantify their effects. As to the effect of strength training interventions in individuals with stroke, the majority of studies (albeit with small samples) that evaluated muscle strength as an outcome demonstrated improvements. With regard to the effect of strength training on functional outcomes in individuals with stroke, positive outcomes were found in less rigorous pre-test/post-test studies, but more conflicting results with controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is some suggestion that strength training alone can improve muscle strength, further research is required to optimize strength training and the transfer of these strength gains to functional tasks in individuals with stroke.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it