A Randomized Controlled Trial of Supervised Versus Unsupervised Exercise Programs for Ambulatory Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about the relative efficacy of supervised versus unsupervised community exercise programs for stroke survivors. This study compared the effectiveness of a 10-week supervised strengthening and conditioning program (supervised) with a 1-week supervised instruction program followed by a 9-week unsupervised home program (unsupervised) and evaluated retention of changes at 6 months and 1 year after program completion. METHODS: Seventy-two subjects retained at baseline (27 women, 45 men; mean+/-SD age, 64.6+/-11.8 years) were randomly allocated to receive the supervised or unsupervised program. The primary outcome was walking speed over 6 minutes, and secondary outcome measures were Human Activity Profile, Medical Outcome Study 36-Item Short-Form survey (SF-36), Physiological Cost Index, and lower extremity muscle strength. RESULTS: The 6-minute walking speed increased significantly in both groups and remained significantly improved by 1 year. The Human Activity Profile demonstrated an increasing trend only in the supervised group that was significant by 1 year. The SF-36 Physical Component summary score increased significantly in the supervised group and remained improved by 1 year; the unsupervised group showed significant improvement at 1 year. Women made greater gains in supervised programs, but men made greater gains in unsupervised programs. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised exercise programs and unsupervised programs after initial supervised instruction were both associated with physical benefits that were retained for 1 year, although supervised programs showed trends to greater improvements in self-reported gains. Gender differences require further research.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".