Combined Cognitive-Strategy and Task-Specific Training Affects Cognition and Upper-Extremity Function in Subacute Stroke: An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to estimate the effect of Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) compared with usual occupational therapy on upper-extremity movement, cognitive flexibility, and stroke impact in people less than 3 mo after stroke. An exploratory, single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted with people referred to outpatient occupational therapy services at two rehabilitation centers. Arm movement was measured with the Action Research Arm Test, cognitive flexibility with the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Trail Making subtest, and stroke impact with subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale. A total of 35 participants were randomized, and 26 completed the intervention. CO-OP demonstrated measurable effects over usual care on all measures. These data provide early support for the use of CO-OP to improve performance and remediate cognitive and arm movement impairments after stroke over usual care; however, future study is warranted to confirm the effects observed in this 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".