Effects of an intensive, task-specific rehabilitation program for individuals with chronic stroke: A case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".