Telerehabilitation and Electrical Stimulation: An Occupation-Based, Client-Centered Stroke Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy of a remotely based arm rehabilitation regimen. A 62-year-old man participated in occupation-based, task-specific practice of activities of daily living (ADLs) >3 years after stroke. The entire regimen was administered over the Internet using personal computer-based cameras and free network meeting software. METHOD: Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FM), Action Research Arm Test (ARA), and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) were administered before intervention. One week after treatment, FM, ARA, and COPM were readministered. RESULTS: The participant exhibited reduced impairment and reduced functional limitation. He also expressed enhanced satisfaction with his ability to perform ADLs and rated his ADL performance better after intervention. The participant could now drive using both hands, use eating utensils, and catch and throw a ball. CONCLUSION: Data suggest feasibility and efficacy of a remotely based, inexpensive approach using functional electrical stimulation for affected arm rehabilitation after 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".