Changes in Bone Density and Geometry of the Upper Extremities after Stroke: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine changes in bone density and geometry of the forearm region and motor function of the paretic upper extremity in a person with subacute stroke. Client Description: The participant was a 48-year-old man with right hemiparesis. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. Measures and Outcomes: The assessment of upper-extremity (UE) function and bone imaging took place at 3 months and 12 months after stroke. The participant had moderate motor impairment and severe disuse of the paretic UE 3 months after stroke. During the follow-up period, no substantial change in paretic UE function was observed. At the 12 month follow-up, the areal bone mineral density (aBMD) of the ultradistal and mid-regions of the paretic forearm, as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, sustained a significant reduction of 7.9% and 5.9%, respectively. The non-paretic side, in contrast, had a significant 4.0% increase in aBMD of the mid-forearm and a 2.8% increase in aBMD of the total forearm. Significant findings from peripheral quantitative computed tomography were a reduction in total volumetric bone mineral density (-12.1%) and bone strength index (-20.6%) in the radius distal epiphysis on the paretic side and an increase in cortical bone mineral content (2.0%) and bone strength index (7.6%) in the radius diaphysis on the non-paretic side. IMPLICATIONS: After a stroke that resulted in moderate to severe UE impairment, a significant decline in bone mineral density was identified in various skeletal sites in the forearm region as the participant entered the subacute and chronic stages of recovery. The results point to the potential importance of early rehabilitative intervention in preventing unfavourable bone changes in the paretic upper limb among 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".