Portable upper extremity robotics is as efficacious as upper extremity rehabilitative therapy: a randomized controlled pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a repetitive task-specific practice regimen integrating a portable, electromyography-controlled brace called the 'Myomo' versus usual care repetitive task-specific practice in subjects with chronic, moderate upper extremity impairment. SUBJECTS: Sixteen subjects (7 males; mean age 57.0 ± 11.02 years; mean time post stroke 75.0 ± 87.63 months; 5 left-sided strokes) exhibiting chronic, stable, moderate upper extremity impairment. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were administered repetitive task-specific practice in which they participated in valued, functional tasks using their paretic upper extremities. Both groups were supervised by a therapist and were administered therapy targeting their paretic upper extremities that was 30 minutes in duration, occurring 3 days/week for eight weeks. One group participated in repetitive task-specific practice entirely while wearing the portable robotic, while the other performed the same activity regimen manually. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The upper extremity Fugl-Meyer, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and Stroke Impact Scale were administered on two occasions before intervention and once after intervention. RESULTS: After intervention, groups exhibited nearly identical Fugl-Meyer score increases of ≈2.1 points; the group using robotics exhibited larger score changes on all but one of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and Stroke Impact Scale subscales, including a 12.5-point increase on the Stroke Impact Scale recovery subscale. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that therapist-supervised repetitive task-specific practice integrating robotics is as efficacious as manual practice in subjects with moderate upper extremity impairment.
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 | 0.015 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".