Physiotherapy Coupled With Dextroamphetamine for Rehabilitation After Hemiparetic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hemiparesis is the commonest disabling deficit caused by stroke. In animals, dextroamphetamine (AMPH) paired with training enhances motor recovery, but its clinical efficacy is uncertain. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 71 stroke patients were stratified by hemiparesis severity and randomly assigned to 10 sessions of physiotherapy coupled with either 10 mg AMPH or placebo. Study treatments were administered by 1 physiotherapist, beginning 5 to 10 days after stroke and continuing twice per week for 5 weeks. Outcomes were assessed by 1 physiotherapist at baseline, after each treatment session, at 6 weeks, and at 3 months. The primary outcome was motor recovery (impairment level) on the Fugl-Meyer (FM) scale. Secondary outcomes assessed mobility, ambulation, arm/hand function, and independence in activities of daily living. RESULTS: Baseline hemiparesis was severe overall (mean FM score 27.7+/-20.0). Motor scores improved during treatment in both groups (mean change, baseline to 3 months 29.5+/-16.6). Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no significant differences in recovery between the treatment groups for the entire cohort (n=67) or for subgroups with a severe hemiparesis (n=43), moderate hemiparesis (n=24), or cortically based stroke (n=26). In the moderate subgroup, there was a significant drug x time interaction for upper extremity motor recovery (F=5.14; P<0.001), although there was a significant baseline imbalance in motor scores in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: In stroke patients with a severe motor deficit, 10 mg AMPH coupled with physiotherapy twice per week for 5 weeks in the early poststroke period provided no additional benefit in motor or functional recovery compared with physiotherapy alone. Patients with moderate severity hemiparesis deserve further investigation. Increased intensity and longer duration drug/therapy dosing regimens should be explored, targeting the upper and lower limbs separately.
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".