MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323115202 · doi:10.1097/npt.0b013e318176b466

Feasibility of Adapted Aerobic Cycle Ergometry Tasks to Encourage Paretic Limb Use After Stroke: A Case Series

2008· article· en· W2323115202 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn M. Sibley, Ada Tang, Dina Brooks, David A. Brown, William E. McIlroy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurologic Physical Therapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Physical therapyHeart rateMedicineAerobic exerciseExertionPsychologyBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiorespiratory fitness, along with sensorimotor recovery, is important for optimal function after stroke. Development of exercises that simultaneously address aerobic training and increase paretic limb involvement may improve outcomes and maximize productivity of therapy sessions. This case series assessed the feasibility of and characterized the cardiorespiratory and sensorimotor demands of adapted aerobic cycle ergometer activities hypothesized to increase paretic limb use. Mechanically loaded and electromyographic (EMG) feedback pedaling were compared to traditional pedaling in three poststroke case studies and a healthy control group. Submaximal oxygen uptake (Vo2), heart rate, perceived rate of exertion (RPE), and EMG of four leg muscles were assessed. Mechanically loaded ergometry increased RPE and altered muscle activity in healthy participants, while participants with stroke did not consistently increase paretic limb activation. EMG feedback pedaling increased target limb activity in healthy participants and decreased nonparetic activity in stroke participants. This paper highlights the challenges involved in adapting training tasks for individuals who are not able to walk at training intensities. Further work is necessary to refine adapted tasks for optimal effectiveness, and consideration of additional methods that permit differential interlimb loading may have additional value.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurologic Physical TherapySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207