Effects of robotic‐aided rehabilitation on recovery of upper extremity function in chronic stroke: a single case study
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
The objective of the study was to examine the results of robotic therapy in a single client. A 48-year-old female client 15 months post-stroke, with right hemiparesis, received robotic therapy as an outpatient in a large Midwestern rehabilitation hospital. Robotic therapy was provided three times a week for 6 weeks. Robotic therapy consisted of goal-directed, robotic-aided reaching tasks to exercise the hemiparetic shoulder and elbow. No other therapeutic intervention for the affected upper extremity was provided during the study or 3 months follow-up period. The outcome measures included the Fugl-Meyer, graded Wolf motor function test (GWMFT), motor activity log, active range of motion and Canadian occupational performance measure. The participant made gains in active movement; performance; and satisfaction of functional tasks, GWMFT and functional use. Limitations involved in this study relate to the generalizability of the sample size, effect of medications, expense of robotic technologies and the impact of aphasia. Future research should incorporate functional use training along with robotic 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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