Potential effectiveness of three different treatment approaches to improve minimal to moderate arm and hand function after stroke – a pilot randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test a study design and explore the feasibility and potential effects of conventional neurological therapy, constraint induced therapy and therapeutic climbing to improve minimal to moderate arm and hand function in patients after a stroke. METHOD: A pilot study with six-month follow-up in patients after stroke with minimal to moderate arm and hand function admitted for inpatient rehabilitation was performed. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three treatment approaches. Main outcomes were improvement of arm and hand function and adverse effects. RESULTS: 283 patients with stroke were screened for inclusion over a two-year period, out of which fourtyfour were included. All patients could be treated according to the protocol. Improvement of arm and hand function was significantly higher in conventional neurological therapy and constraint induced therapy compared with therapeutic climbing at discharge, and at six months follow-up (P < 0.05, effect size = 0.56-0.76). No significant differences in arm and hand function were observed between constraint induced therapy and conventional neurological therapy. Constraint induced therapy participants were significantly less at risk of developing shoulder pain at six months follow-up compared with the other participants (P < 0.05, effect size = 0.82 and 1.79, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The study design needs adaptation to accommodate the stringent inclusion criteria leading to prolonged study duration. Constraint induced therapy seems to be the optimal approach to improve arm and hand function and minimize the risk of shoulder pain for patients with minimal to moderate arm hand function after stroke in the intermediate term.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".