Poststroke “Pushing”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with hemiparetic stroke have impaired balance control. Some patients ("pushers") are resistant to accepting weight on and actively "push" away from the nonparetic side. This research identified pushers from stroke patients with moderate to severe hemiparesis and examined longitudinal changes in symptoms, level of impairment, and functional independence. METHODS: Prospective sample of hemiparetic stroke patients (n=65) located in Toronto, Canada. Detailed clinical assessments were performed within 10 days postonset, at 6 weeks, and at 3 months. RESULTS: At 1 week after stroke, 63% of patients demonstrated features of pushing. In 62% of pushers, symptoms resolved by 6 weeks, whereas in 21%, pushing symptoms persisted at 3 months. Motor recovery and functional abilities at 3 months were significantly lower among the pushers compared with the nonpushers. Pushers also had a significantly longer hospital length of stay (89 days versus 57 days). It is noteworthy that motor and functional recovery improved significantly over the 3-month study period for both pushers and nonpushers. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of stroke patients with pushing symptoms has prognostic implications for recovery. In light of this potential recovery, rehabilitation specialists need to refine treatment approaches for the pushers to further improve functional outcome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".