Impaired Reactive Stepping Among Patients Ready for Discharge From Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with stroke are at increased risk for falls soon after hospital discharge. The ability to react to a balance perturbation, specifically with a rapid step, is critical to maintain balance and prevent falls. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence of impaired reactive stepping responses in an ambulatory group of patients with stroke who were preparing for discharge from inpatient rehabilitation and the relationship to patient performance on commonly used clinical measures of balance, mobility, and lower limb impairment. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective analysis of patient admissions over a 3-year period. METHODS: Charts were reviewed for patients who, at time of discharge, had completed a perturbation-evoked reactive stepping assessment. RESULTS: Ninety-nine (71%) of 139 patients had impaired stepping reactions characterized by the need for assistance, an inability to step with either lower limb, or the need for multiple-step responses. There was a statistically significant difference in clinical scores between those with and without impaired stepping, but groups were characterized by considerable variation in clinical profiles. For example, Berg Balance Scale scores ranged from 25 to 55 versus 20 to 56 and gait speeds ranged from 0.17 to 1.43 versus 0.26 to 1.55 m/s for patients who demonstrated a failed step versus a successful step, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Not all patients who attended stroke rehabilitation received a reactive stepping assessment at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired reactive stepping is a prevalent problem for ambulatory patients with stroke preparing for discharge, possibly increasing their risk of falling when faced with the challenges of community ambulation. Specific tests that target the capacity to perform perturbation-evoked stepping reactions may be important to identify those at risk for falls and to direct appropriate intervention strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".