MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111179130 · doi:10.1310/udxe-mjff-53v2-eap0

Gait Retraining Post Stroke

2003· review· en· W2111179130 on OpenAlex
Robert Teasell, Sanjit K. Bhogal, Norine Foley, Mark Speechley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health Care
FundersCanadian Stroke Network
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFunctional electrical stimulationGaitRehabilitationGait trainingBiofeedbackPhysical therapyTreadmillStroke (engine)MedicineAnkleRetrainingStimulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major component of stroke rehabilitation focuses on gait restoration. The purpose of this review is to examine the efficacy of a variety of gait retraining techniques currently in clinical use, including strength training, functional electrical stimulation, treadmill training, partial body-weight support, EMG biofeedback, and splinting of the lower extremity. Forty-eight studies evaluating six gait enhancement techniques were reviewed. There is either strong or moderate evidence to support the use of strength training, EMG/biofeedback, and functional electrical stimulation as an adjunctive therapy in gait training, and there is either limited or conflicting evidence to support the use of ankle-foot orthosis, treadmill training, and partial body-weight support.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it