The effect of a task-oriented intervention on arm function in people with stroke: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a task-oriented intervention in enhancing arm function in people with stroke. DESIGN: Two-centre, observer-blinded, stratified, block-randomized controlled trial. SETTING: General community. PATIENTS: Ninety-one individuals within one year of a first or recurrent stroke consented to participate between May 2000 and February 2003. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention involved practice of functional, unilateral and bilateral tasks that were designed to improve gross and fine manual dexterity whereas the control intervention was composed of walking tasks. Members in both groups participated in three sessions a week for six weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary test of arm function was the Box and Block Test. Secondary tests included the Nine-Hole Peg Test, maximal grip strength, the Test d'Evaluation des Membres supérieurs des Personnes Agées (TEMPA) and the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement. RESULTS: Results are for the more affected arm. Baseline performance on the Box and Block Test was an average of 26 blocks (standard deviation (SD) = 16) in the experimental group (n = 47) and 26 blocks (SD = 18) in the control group (n = 44). These values represent approximately 40% of age-predicted values. Values for the postintervention evaluation were an average of 28 (SD = 17) and 28 (SD = 19) blocks for the experimental and control group respectively. No meaningful change on other measures of arm function was observed. CONCLUSIONS: A task-oriented intervention did not improve voluntary movement or manual dexterity of the affected arm in people with chronic stroke.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".