Home-based Constraint Induced Movement Therapy Poststroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study examined the efficacy of a home-based Constraint Induced Movement Therapy (CI Therapy) protocol with eight poststroke survivors. Method: Eight ABA, single case experiments were conducted in the homes of poststroke survivors. The intervention comprised restraint of the intact upper limb in a mitt for 21 days combined with a home-based and self-directed daily activity regime. Motor changes were measured using The Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and the Motor Activity Log (MAL). Results: Grouped results showed statistically and clinically significant differences on the WMFT (WMFT [timed items]): Mean 7.28 seconds, SEM 1.41, 95% CI 4.40 – 10.18, p = 0.000; WMFT (Functional Ability): z = -4.63, p = 0.000). Seven out of the eight participants exceeded the minimal detectable change on both subscales of the MAL. Conclusion: This study offers positive preliminary data regarding the feasibility of a home-based CI Therapy protocol. This requires further study through an appropriately powered control trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".