Randomized controlled trial of strength training in post‐polio patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many post-polio patients develop new muscle weakness decades after the initial illness. However, its mechanism and treatment are controversial. The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that: (1) after strength training, post-polio patients show strength improvement comparable to that seen in the healthy elderly; (2) such training does not have a deleterious effect on motor unit (MU) survival; and (3) part of the strength improvement is due to an increase in voluntary motor drive. After baseline measures including maximum voluntary contraction force, voluntary activation index, motor unit number estimate, and the tetanic tension of the thumb muscles had been determined, 10 post-polio patients with hand involvement were randomized to either the training or control group. The progressive resistance training program consisted of three sets of eight isometric contractions, three times weekly for 12 weeks. Seven healthy elderly were also randomized and trained in a similar manner. Changes in the baseline parameters were monitored once every 4 weeks throughout the training period. The trained post-polio patients showed a significant improvement in their strength (P < 0.05). The magnitude of gain was greater than that seen in the healthy elderly (mean +/- SE, 41 +/- 16% vs. 29 +/- 8%). The training did not adversely affect MU survival and the improvement was largely attributable to an increase in voluntary motor drive. We therefore conclude that moderate intensity strength training is safe and effective in post-polio patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".