The Role of Technology in Task-Oriented Training in Persons with Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This trial compares the effects of task-oriented physical therapy (PT) provided with and without the use of rehabilitation technology on locomotor recovery in 63 persons with subacute stroke. Participants in the experimental (EXP) group used a treadmill, a Kinetron isokinetic exerciser, and a limb-load monitor, whereas those in the control (CTL) group did not while engaging in PT 1 h per day, 5 days per week for 2 months. Locomotor recovery was assessed by clinical (gait speed, Fugl Meyer motor leg and arm subscores, the Balance Scale, the Timed Up and Go, and the Barthel ambulation subscore) and laboratory outcomes (gait kinematics and kinetics) pre- and posttherapy and 3 months later. Within groups, gait speed (P < 0.01) and all secondary measures improved posttherapy (P < 0.01-0.05), and improvements in clinical measures were maintained at follow-up, but there was no difference between groups (P > 0.05). When the groups were pooled, the increase in gait speed was associated (r = 0.52, P = 0.003) with an increase in ankle power generation of the affected leg. The results demonstrate that the efficacy of the task-oriented approach is not dependent on rehabilitation technology.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".