Group modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) in a clinical setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated the effectiveness of a modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) program delivered in a group format. Methods: Thirteen subacute or chronic stroke and two subacute brain injured participants attended a group mCIMT program for 3.5 h daily for 10 treatment days. The groups consisted of three participants supervised by two staff. Motor recovery, functional arm use, and participation were evaluated by an independent assessor at five time points (baseline, immediately preprogram, immediately postprogram, 1 and 3-month postprogram). Results:Participants achieved statistical and clinically significant improvements in motor recovery (Wolf Motor Function Test), functional use (Motor Activity Log) and participation (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure). These improvements were maintained over a 3-month follow-up period. Conclusion: Group delivery of mCIMT produces meaningful results and is a potentially effective way of extending availability of this program without placing overwhelming demands on health care resources.Implications for RehabilitationConstraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is an effective treatment for upper extremity weakness as a result of stroke or brain injury.Development of CIMT programs in a clinical setting have been limited by the heavy demands it places on personnel, space and equipmentA clinically based group modified CIMT (mCIMT) program with stroke and brain injury survivors showed statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in motor recovery, functional use, and participation.Group delivery of mCIMT can be an effective way of extending availability of this program without placing overwhelming demands on hospital resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".