Combined Cognitive-Strategy and Task-Specific Training Improve Transfer to Untrained Activities in Subacute Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the effect of the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach compared with usual outpatient rehabilitation on activity and participation in people <3 months poststroke. METHODS: An exploratory, single-blind, randomized controlled trial, with a usual-care control arm, was conducted. Participants referred to 2 stroke rehabilitation outpatient programs were randomized to receive either usual care or CO-OP. The primary outcome was actual performance of trained and untrained self-selected activities, measured using the Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS). Additional outcomes included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Stroke Impact Scale Participation Domain, the Community Participation Index, and the Self-Efficacy Gauge. RESULTS: A total of 35 eligible participants were randomized; 26 completed the intervention. Post intervention, PQRS change scores demonstrated that CO-OP had a medium effect over usual care on trained self-selected activities (d = 0.5) and a large effect on untrained activities (d = 1.2). At a 3-month follow-up, PQRS change scores indicated a large effect of CO-OP on both trained (d = 1.6) and untrained activities (d = 1.1). CO-OP had a small effect on COPM and a medium effect on the Community Participation Index perceived control and on the Self-Efficacy Gauge. CONCLUSION: CO-OP was associated with a large treatment effect on follow-up performances of self-selected activities and demonstrated transfer to untrained activities. A larger trial is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".