Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients
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
OBJECTIVES: To examine the mechanisms of alternative strategies developed by stroke patients to compensate their motor impairment and their role in recovery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The three-dimensional kinematics of the upper limb were quantified during unconstrained reaching movements in seven healthy individuals and in 15 stroke patients. Nine patients were followed-up. Individual observations were correlated with anatomical and functional brain imaging described elsewhere (Feydy et al. Stroke 2002;33:1610). RESULTS: Healthy subjects used mainly elbow extension and shoulder flexion, scaled to movement distance. Patients with hemiparesis because of stroke used different patterns of joint recruitment with different scaling rules. Patients with the greatest impairment compensated by recruiting extra degrees of freedom, particularly trunk bending. Improvement was because of a restoration towards a normal movement pattern (recovery) and/or to a reinforcement of compensation, which led to a poorer outcome. CONCLUSION: Individual behavioural data are necessary to discuss the mechanisms of functional improvement following stroke with respect to recovery and/or compensation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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