Bilateral Arm Training for Patients with Chronic Hemiparetic in Upper Limb Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assess the effect that BAT (Bilateral Arm Training) produces on the upper limb motor control in patients with chronic brain injury assessed by the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). Assess if there is a statistically significant correlation between motor control improvement and disability perceived by the Quick Dash questionnaire application. A quasi-experimental study with pre-post treatment measures during three months was performed in a sample of twelve patients with chronic brain injury. Patients received twelve sessions of forty-five minutes from bilateral training with a frequency of three times per week. WMFT and QD were used for the procedure assessment. Outcomes were statistically analyzed by the SPSS v 17.0 software. The study was executed at Polibea. Study´s inclusion criteria were as follows: no serious cognitive deficits, one or both upper limb´s control motor affected, attend to Polibea two times per week and no sensitive aphasia. After the BAT treatment we observed a statistically significant difference on motor control improvement in the WMFT. However the disability perceived through QD was not statistically significant. In conclusion, BAT improves motor control in our patients with chronic acquired brain injury.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".