MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152621174 · doi:10.3109/09638280903242716

Effects of an intensive, task-specific rehabilitation program for individuals with chronic stroke: A case series

2009· article· en· W2152621174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie A. Combs, Stephanie Piper Kelly, Rebecca Barton, Megan Ivaska, Kara Nowak

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLilly Endowment
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Berg Balance ScaleTest (biology)Intervention (counseling)Balance (ability)Activities of daily livingMedicinePsychological interventionAmbulatoryOccupational therapyTimed Up and Go testTask (project management)PsychologyGoal Attainment ScalingNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this case series was to determine feasibility and evaluate changes in activity and participation outcomes in persons with chronic stroke after an intensive, task-specific rehabilitation program incorporating whole-body and client-centred interventions. METHOD: Participants with chronic stroke (N = 12) who were ambulatory and had at least minimal arm/hand function were recruited. The program included whole-body goal-focused activities, gait training and strengthening exercises for 4 h, 5 days per week for 2 weeks. Daily educational sessions and a home activities program were also included. Activity-based measures including the Wolf motor function test, Berg balance scale, timed up and go test and 6-min walk test and participation-based measures including the Stroke Impact Scale and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure were collected at pre-test, immediate post-test and 5-month retention. RESULTS: The effect of the intervention on participation-based outcomes was much greater than on the activity-based outcomes. Minimal detectable differences in self-perceived participation were reported for most participants. CONCLUSIONS: The intensive, task-specific intervention was a feasible program for these participants with stroke. Although minimal changes in activity-based outcomes were found, the participants perceived improvements in participation with personal goal-related activities that resulted in large effect sizes that were maintained for 5-months after the intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207