A task-orientated intervention enhances walking distance and speed in the first year post stroke: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a task-orientated intervention in enhancing competence in walking in people with stroke. DESIGN: Two-centre observer-blinded stratified block-randomized controlled trial. SETTING: General community. SUBJECTS: Between May 2000 and February 2003, 91 individuals with a residual walking deficit within one year of a first or recurrent stroke consented to participate. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention comprised 10 functional tasks designed to strengthen the lower extremities and enhance walking balance, speed and distance. The control intervention involved the practice of upper extremity activities. Subjects in both groups attended sessions three times a week for six weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Six-minute walk test (SMWT), 5-m walk (comfortable and maximum pace), Berg Balance Scale, timed 'up and go'. RESULTS: At baseline, subjects in the experimental (n = 44) and control (n = 47) groups walked an average distance of 209 m (SD = 126) and 204 m (SD =131), respectively, on the SMWT. Mean improvements of 40 m (SD =72), and 5 m (SD =66) were observed following the experimental and control interventions, respectively. The between-group difference was 35 m (95% confidence interval (CI) 7, 64). Significant between-group effects of 0.21 m/s (95% CI 0.12, 0.30) and of 0.11 m/s (95% CI 0.03, 0.19) in maximum and comfortable walking speed, respectively, were observed. People with a mild, moderate or severe walking deficit at baseline improved an average of 36 (SD =96), 55 (SD = 56) and 18 m (SD = 23), respectively, in SMWT performance following the experimental intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings support the efficacy of a task-orientated intervention in enhancing walking distance and speed in the first year post stroke, particularly in people with moderate walking deficits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".