Long-Term Therapeutic and Orthotic Effects of a Foot Drop Stimulator on Walking Performance in Progressive and Nonprogressive Neurological Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stimulators applying functional electrical stimulation (FES) to the common peroneal nerve improve walking with a foot drop, which occurs in several disorders. OBJECTIVE: To compare the orthotic and therapeutic effects of a foot drop stimulator on walking performance of subjects with chronic nonprogressive (eg, stroke) and progressive (eg, multiple sclerosis) disorders. METHODS: Subjects with nonprogressive (41) and progressive (32) conditions used a foot drop stimulator for 3 to 12 months while walking in the community. Walking speed was measured with a 10-m test and a 4-minute figure-8 test; physiological cost index (PCI) and device usage were also measured. The subjects were tested with FES on and off (orthotic effect) before and after (therapeutic effect) stimulator use. RESULTS: After 3 months of FES use, the nonprogressive and progressive groups had a similar, significant orthotic effect (5.0% and 5.7%, respectively, P < .003; percentage change in mean values) and therapeutic effect with FES off (17.8% and 9.1%, respectively, P < .005) on figure-8 walking speed. Overall, PCI showed a decreasing trend (P = .031). The therapeutic effect on figure-8 speed diverged later between both groups to 28.0% (P < .001) and 7.9% at 11 months. The combined therapeutic plus orthotic effect on figure-8 speed at 11 months was, respectively, 37.8% (P < .001) and 13.1% (P = .012); PCI decreased 18.2% (P = .038) and 6.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with progressive and nonprogressive disorders had an orthotic benefit from FES up to 11 months. The therapeutic effect increased for 11 months in nonprogressive disorders but only for 3 months in progressive disorders. The combined effect remained significant and clinically relevant.
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".