The Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation on Balance Function and Balance Confidence in Community-Dwelling Individuals with Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the change in balance function and balance confidence in adults with chronic stroke who are starting a gait re-education program with functional electrical stimulation (FES). METHODS: The study used a before-after study design. Fifteen community-dwelling adults with chronic stroke completed four weekly sessions (2 hours each) of balance and ambulation training with FES applied to the ankle dorsiflexors during the swing phase. Following this familiarization period, participants were assessed for balance and mobility with and without the use of FES. Balance confidence was assessed before and after the familiarization period using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale. RESULTS: There was a small but statistically significant improvement in toe clearance and balance function with the FES device, but no detectable change in gait speed. More than half of participants reported reduced balance confidence with the FES device; one-third showed a large (>11 ABC points) reduction in balance confidence. CONCLUSION: Physical improvements can occur during FES treatment of individuals post-stroke; however, this may be associated with a clinically important impairment in balance confidence as patients with stroke familiarize themselves with FES treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".