Integrating Aerobic Training Within Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerobic activity positively affects patients recovering from stroke and is part of best practice guidelines, yet this evidence has not been translated to routine practice. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a model of care that integrated aerobic training in an inpatient rehabilitation setting for patients in the subacute stage of stroke recovery. Key elements of the program were personalized training prescription based on submaximal test results and supervision within a group setting. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Participants (N=78) completed submaximal exercise testing prior to enrollment, and the test results were used by their treating physical therapists for exercise prescription. Feasibility was evaluated using enrollment, class attendance, adherence to prescription, and participant perceptions. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients (40%) were referred to and completed the exercise program. Cardiac comorbidities were the main reason for nonreferral to the fitness group. Program attendance was 77%; scheduling conflicts were the primary barrier to participation. The majority of participants (63%) achieved 20 minutes of continuous exercise by the end of the program. No adverse events were reported, all participants felt they benefited from the program, and 80% of the participants expressed interest in continuing to exercise regularly after discharge. LIMITATIONS: Cardiac comorbidities prevented enrollment in the program for 27% of the admitted patients, and strategies for inclusion in exercise programs in this population should be explored. CONCLUSIONS: This individualized exercise program within a group delivery model was feasible; however, ensuring adequate aerobic targets were met was a challenge, and future work should focus on how best to include individuals with cardiac comorbidities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".