MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111249883 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2010.04.0066

Relationship between muscle strength and functional walking capacity among people with stroke

2011· article· en· W2111249883 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolina Moriello, Lois Finch, Nancy E. Mayo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMuscle strengthPhysical therapyObservational studyMedicinePreferred walking speedSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to estimate, using the Position-Specific Global Index (PSGI) of Lower-Limb Muscle Strength, the extent to which muscle strength is independently associated with functional walking capacity. We performed an observational, cross-sectional study with 63 patients poststroke (onset between 3 and 12 months) at a major teaching hospital in an urban Canadian city. We assessed functional walking capacity with the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and muscle strength with handheld dynamometry. We established the relationship between the lower-limb muscles and functional walking capacity with the PSGI. The PSGI explained 70% (p < 0.001) of the variability in the 6MWT, whereas the index of alternate against-gravity muscle strength explained 39% and the hip flexors in a supine position explained 51%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and DevelopmentSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207