MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166649898 · doi:10.3109/09593980902967188

Orthotic functional electrical stimulation following botulinum toxin for a young adult with severe hand impairment due to childhood stroke

2010· article· en· W2166649898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierce Boyne, Kari Dunning, Peter Levine, Valerie Hill Hermann, Stephen J. Page

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Theory and Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBotulinum toxinStimulationFunctional electrical stimulationStroke (engine)Functional impairmentPhysical therapyAnesthesiaPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This case report describes the outcomes of a task-specific training protocol using functional electrical stimulation for a young adult with severe hand impairment from a childhood stroke who had a history of tendon transfer and a recent botulinum toxin injection. A 22-year-old female who had a hemorrhagic stroke at age 5, a tendon transfer at 18, and a botulinum toxin injection 6 weeks before study entry, participated in a home- and clinic-based task-specific training program using a functional electrical stimulation orthosis. Training was 30-90 minutes per day, 4 days per week, for 4 weeks. Stroke-specific outcomes were measured before and after intervention. Increases occurred in the following scores: Action Research Arm Test, Stroke Impact Scale Hand Function Domain, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. A task-specific training protocol using orthotic functional electrical stimulation appears to have increased hand function and quality of life for an adult with chronic, childhood-onset stroke. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation for such an individual.

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)0.001
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 score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy Theory and PracticeSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207