Effects of task-oriented activities on hand functions in patients with hand injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of task-oriented activities on hand functions in patients with hand injuries. From December 2011 to October 2012, sixteen patients with hand injuries at C Hospital in Changwon, Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea were randomly divided into two groups. One group was subjected to task-oriented activity and the other to general exercise. Two groups performed each activity once a day, three times a week, for four weeks. The group with the task-oriented activities was provided with the tasks according to subject-preference based on the result of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). To verify the effect of intervention, the following hand function measures were used: grip strength, pinch strength, and the range of opposition and abduction, Purdue pegboard test and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). Both groups showed significant increase in all of the hand function measures after 4-week activities(p<.05). The task-oriented activity group was significantly different from the control group in powers for tip pinch, lateral pinch and three-jaw chuck pinch, Purdue pegboard test and DASH(p<.05) except in grip strength and the range of opposition and abduction suggesting better improvement in hand functions. This study shows that task-oriented activities improve the hand functions more effectively in patients with hand injuries.
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".