Immediate Effects of Cane Use on Gait Symmetry in Individuals with Subacute Stroke
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
PURPOSE: In stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of consensus regarding the effects of cane use on gait symmetry. This study aimed to evaluate the immediate effects on gait symmetry of ambulating with a standard cane and a quad cane among individuals with subacute stroke. METHOD: A within-subject experimental design was used to evaluate symmetry in in-patients with subacute stroke during ambulation on a pressure-sensitive walkway for three task conditions: with no cane, with standard single-point cane, and with quad cane. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were classified as symmetric (n = 5) or asymmetric (n = 9) based on their gait symmetry while walking without an aid. Overall, use of a standard cane during ambulation significantly improved symmetry in asymmetric patients (p = 0.028). In contrast, the use of a quad cane did not improve symmetry (p = 0.36). There was no effect on symmetry in symmetric patients with use of either a standard cane (p = 0.88) or a quad cane (p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the immediate effect of a standard cane is to improve symmetry in patients with subacute stroke who have asymmetric gait. Future studies are required to determine the long-term effects of canes on gait symmetry in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it