A randomized trial of two home-based exercise programmes to improve functional walking post-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative effectiveness in improving walking ability and other mobility and health outcomes post-stroke of two home-based exercise programmes - stationary cycling and an exercise and walking programme. DESIGN: An observer-blinded, randomized, pragmatic, trial with repeated measures. SETTING: Hospital centers in two Canadian cities. SUBJECTS: People within 12 months of acute stroke who were able to walk >10 meters independently and healthy enough to engage in exercise. INTERVENTIONS: Two dose-equivalent interventions, one involving stationary cycling and the other disability-targeted interventions were tested. Both protocols required daily moderate intensity exercise at home building up to 30 minutes per day. One group exercised on a stationary bicycle, the second group carried out mobility exercises and brisk walking. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was walking capacity as measured by the six-minute walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes were physical function, role participation, health-related quality of life exercise adherence, and adverse events. RESULTS: The study failed to meet recruitment targets: 87 participants (cycle group, n = 43; exercise group, n = 44) participated. No significant effects of group or time were revealed for the 6MWT, which was approximately 320 m at randomization. A significant effect for role participation was found in favor of the exercise group (global odds ratio (OR) for cycling vs. exercise was 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.95). Change in the 6MWT between highest and lowest adherence categories was statistically significant (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Both programmes were equally effective in maintaining walking capacity after discharge from stroke rehabilitation; or were equally ineffective in improving walking capacity. Clinical Trials Gov number: NCT00786045.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".