Longitudinal Changes in Poststroke Spatiotemporal Gait Asymmetry Over Inpatient Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little information exists about longitudinal changes in spatiotemporal gait asymmetry during rehabilitation, despite it being a common goal. Objectives. To describe longitudinal changes in spatiotemporal gait asymmetry over rehabilitation and examine relationships with changes in other poststroke impairments. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for 71 stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Admission and discharge measures of spatiotemporal symmetry, velocity, motor impairment, mobility and balance were extracted and change scores were calculated. Relationships between changes in spatiotemporal symmetry and other change scores were investigated with Spearman correlations. Individuals were divided into four groups (worse, no change-symmetric, no change-asymmetric, improved) based on (1) symmetry/asymmetry at admission and (2) symmetry change scores >minimal detectable change. Differences in change scores between groups were investigated with analyses of covariance using the admission value as a covariate. RESULTS: At admission, 59% and 49% of individuals were asymmetric in swing time and step length, respectively. Of these individuals, 21% and 14% improved swing symmetry or step symmetry, respectively. In contrast, 30% improved gait velocity, 62% improved functional balance and 73% improved functional mobility. Associations between change in swing symmetry and change in paretic limb weight bearing in standing and change in step symmetry and change in velocity were significant. There were no significant differences in change scores between the symmetry groups. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of asymmetric stroke patients did not improve spatiotemporal asymmetry during rehabilitation despite the fact that velocity, balance and functional mobility improved. Future work should investigate other factors associated with improved spatiotemporal symmetry and interventions to specifically improve it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".