Functional Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Recovery of Reaching and Grasping in Severe Chronic Pediatric Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke affects 2.7 children per 100,000 annually, leaving many of them with lifelong residual impairments despite intensive rehabilitation. In the present study the authors evaluated the effectiveness of 48 hours of transcutaneous functional electrical stimulation therapy for retraining voluntary reaching and grasping in 4 severe chronic pediatric stroke participants. Participants were assessed using the Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory Hand Function Test, Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test, Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory, and Assisting Hand Assessment. All participants improved on all measures. The average change scores on selected Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory Hand Function Test components were 14.5 for object manipulation (P = .042), 0.78 Nm for instrumented cylinder (P = .068), and 14 for wooden blocks (P = .068) and on the grasp component of Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test was 25.93 (P = .068). These results provide preliminary evidence that functional electrical stimulation therapy has the potential to improve upper limb function in severe chronic pediatric stroke patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".