Comparison of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy and Bilateral Treatment of Equal Intensity in People With Chronic Upper-Extremity Dysfunction After Cerebrovascular Accident
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) with bilateral treatment of equal intensity for chronic upper-extremity (UE) dysfunction caused by cerebrovascular accident (CVA). DESIGN: We conducted a 2-group, randomized intervention trial with stratification by severity of UE dysfunction. Twelve community-dwelling adults were provided with 6 hr of occupational therapy for 10 days plus additional home practice. Six participants wore a mitt on the unimpaired UE, and 6 participants were intrusively and repetitively cued to use both UEs. The Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) were administered before and after treatment and at 6-mo follow-up. RESULTS: Significant improvements were found in WMFT and COPM scores across time in both groups. No significant between-group differences were found on the WMFT. CONCLUSION: High-intensity occupational therapy using a CIMT or a bilateral approach can improve UE function in people with chronic UE dysfunction after CVA. Treatment intensity rather than restraint may be the critical therapeutic factor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".