Bilateral arm training in the chronic phase of stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
Objective: Bilateral arm training (BAT) is an intervention utilized in rehabilitating upper-extremity paresis. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the evidence for BAT on upperlimb paresis in the chronic phase of stroke. Methods: A literature search of multiple databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, OT Seeker ) was conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language that met inclusion criteria. Studies must have included BAT as part of treatment and participants must have been ≥6 months post stroke. Methodological quality of each study was assessed using the PEDro scale (maximum score=10). Results: Eight RCTs satisfied the inclusion criteria (PEDro scores 1-7) for a total pooled sample size of 131 subjects (88 males and 43 females). The mean age of subjects was 57.6±4.1 years (range 50.7-64.8 years) and the mean time since stroke was 43.8±34.8 months (range 13.9-114.0 months). Among study endpoints, only the Fugl-Meyer Assessment tool showed significant improvement in motor impairment whereby the BAT groups improved, on average, 3.77 points whereas the control group improved just 1.23 points (Difference of Means = 1.46±0.662; p=0.028). Conclusion: Overall, BAT showed a general trend in improvement over standard therapy, although it was not statistically significant. Future studies with improved methodological quality (e.g., strict inclusion criteria, protocol standardization) and larger sample sizes are needed to appropriately assess the benefit of BAT in 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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it