Strength Training Improves Upper-Limb Function 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
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: After stroke, maximal voluntary force is reduced in the arm and hand muscles, and upper-limb strength training is 1 intervention with the potential to improve function. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Electronic databases were searched from 1950 through April 2009. Strength training articles were assessed according to outcomes: strength, upper-limb function, and activities of daily living. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated to estimate the pooled effect size with random-effect models. RESULTS: From the 650 trials identified, 13 were included in this review, totaling 517 individuals. A positive outcome for strength training was found for grip strength (SMD=0.95, P=0.04) and upper-limb function (SMD=0.21, P=0.03). No treatment effect was found for strength training on measures of activities of daily living. A significant effect for strength training on upper-limb function was found for studies including subjects with moderate (SMD=0.45, P=0.03) and mild (SMD=0.26, P=0.01) upper-limb motor impairment. No trials reported adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that strength training can improve upper-limb strength and function without increasing tone or pain 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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