Disparity Between Functional Recovery and Daily Use of the Upper and Lower Extremities During Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although inpatient rehabilitation may enhance an individual's functional ability after stroke, it is not known whether these improvements are accompanied by an increase in daily use of the arms and legs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the change in daily use of the upper and lower extremities of stroke patients during rehabilitation and to compare these values with that of community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: A total of 60 stroke patients underwent functional assessments and also wore 3 accelerometers for 3 consecutive weekdays on admission to rehabilitation and 3 weeks later prior to hospital discharge. The number of steps and upper-extremity activity counts were measured over the waking hours and during daily use for occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) sessions. Healthy older adults (n = 40) also wore 3 accelerometers for 5 consecutive days. RESULTS: Stroke patients demonstrated a significant increase in mobility function, and this was accompanied by an increase in daily walking over the entire day as well as in PT. However, increases in daily walking were found predominantly in patients who were wheelchair users (and not walkers) at the time of admission. Control walking values (5202 steps) were more than 17 times that of stroke patients. Despite significant improvements in paretic hand function, no increase in daily use of the paretic or nonparetic hand was found over the entire day or in PT. CONCLUSIONS: A disparity between functional recovery and increases in daily use of the upper and lower extremities was found during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".