Defining Optimal Aerobic Exercise Parameters to Affect Complex Motor and Cognitive Outcomes after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Synthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although poststroke aerobic exercise (AE) increases markers of neuroplasticity and protects perilesional tissue, the degree to which it enhances complex motor or cognitive outcomes is unknown. Previous research suggests that timing and dosage of exercise may be important. We synthesized data from clinical and animal studies in order to determine optimal AE training parameters and recovery outcomes for future research. Using predefined criteria, we included clinical trials of stroke of any type or duration and animal studies employing any established models of stroke. Of the 5,259 titles returned, 52 articles met our criteria, measuring the effects of AE on balance, lower extremity coordination, upper limb motor skills, learning, processing speed, memory, and executive function. We found that early-initiated low-to-moderate intensity AE improved locomotor coordination in rodents. In clinical trials, AE improved balance and lower limb coordination irrespective of intervention modality or parameter. In contrast, fine upper limb recovery was relatively resistant to AE. In terms of cognitive outcomes, poststroke AE in animals improved memory and learning, except when training was too intense. However, in clinical trials, combined training protocols more consistently improved cognition. We noted a paucity of studies examining the benefits of AE on recovery beyond cessation of 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it