The Bobath Concept in Contemporary Clinical Practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Future development in neurorehabilitation depends upon bringing together the endeavors of basic science and clinical practice. The Bobath concept is widely utilized in rehabilitation following stroke and other neurological conditions. This concept was first developed in the 1950s, based on the neuroscience knowledge of those times. PURPOSE: The theoretical basis of the Bobath concept is redefined based on contemporary neuroscience and rehabilitation science. The framework utilized in the Bobath concept for the analysis of movement and movement dysfunction is described. This framework focuses on postural control for task performance, the ability to move selectively, the ability to produce coordinated sequences of movement and vary movement patterns to fit a task, and the role of sensory input in motor behaviour and learning. The article describes aspects of clinical practice that differentiate this approach from other models of practice. Contemporary practice in the Bobath concept utilizes a problem-solving approach to the individual's clinical presentation and personal goals. Treatment is focused toward remediation, where possible, and guiding the individual towards efficient movement strategies for task performance. The aim of this article is to provide a theoretical framework on which future research into the Bobath concept can be based.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it