Effects of Extra Training on the Ability of Stroke Survivors to Perform an Independent Sit-to-Stand: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
Purpose: Many elderly stroke survivors have difficulty standing up from a seated position. We sought in this study, therefore, to: (1) evaluate whether extra practice increases the likelihood of gaining independence in sit-to-stand (STS); (2) determine the number of repetitions required to achieve a safe, independent STS; (3) assess whether extra STS practice leads to greater patient satisfaction with their general health status and quality of life; and (4) evaluate whether extra STS practice results in fewer falls. Methods: Eligible rehabilitation participants were randomly assigned to a conventional or an extra STS practice group. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, time post-stroke, length of stay, duration in study, and motor deficits between the two groups. The difference in the mean daily STS repetitions was significant, 10.6 (inter-quartile range, 8.1-16.5) for the conventional group vs. 14.9 (range, 12.2-20.1) for the extra practice group, p=0.03. Sensitivity and specificity were high for the range of mean daily STS repetitions (11.0-13.5). Extra STS practice resulted in 17 out of 25 stroke survivors (vs. 7/23 in the conventional group) standing up safely and consistently from a 16-inch surface without using their hands (p = 0.02). Although extra STS practice did not result in fewer falls, those stroke survivors who were able to stand independently expressed greater satisfaction with their quality of life (p = 0.02) and physical mobility (p = 0.003). Conclusion: This study supports the importance of repetitive practice in improving STS performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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