Effectiveness of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral task training for arm during the subacute phase after stroke: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an arm training programme combining repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral tasks for people in the subacute phase after stroke. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Inpatient functional rehabilitation unit. SUBJECTS: Forty-one people who had had a stroke, in the subacute phase, receiving conventional arm occupational and physical therapy, were randomized to an experimental group (n=20) and a control group (n=21). INTERVENTIONS: In addition to the usual arm therapy in the rehabilitation unit, the experimental group received an arm therapy programme (15-20 45-min sessions) based on repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral tasks. The control group received additional usual arm therapy of a similar duration and frequency to the experimental treatment. MAIN MEASURES: The effect of the programme was judged on the basis of: (1) arm impairments (motor function, grip strength, gross and fine manual dexterity and motor co-ordination), (2) arm disabilities in tasks related to daily activities, and (3) functional independence in activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). RESULTS: Although both experimental and control groups of participants improved similarly during the study period, the statistical analyses did not show any difference between the groups at the end of the treatment for the different dependent variables evaluated: (1) arm impairments: p = 0.43-0.79; (2) arm disabilities: p = 0.16-0.90; and (3) functional independence: p = 0.63 and 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: An arm training programme based on repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral practice did not reduce impairment and disabilities nor improve functional outcomes in the subacute phase after stroke more than the usual therapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".