Comparison of the Effect of Lateral and Backward Walking Training on Walking Function in Patients with Poststroke Hemiplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purposes of the present study were to compare the effects of backward and lateral walking training and to identify whether additional backward or lateral walking training would be more effective in increasing the walking function of poststroke patients. DESIGN: Fifty-one subjects with hemiplegic stroke were randomly allocated to 3 groups, each containing 17 subjects: the control group, the backward walking training group, and the lateral walking training group. The walking abilities of each group were assessed using a 10-m walk test and the GAITRite system for spatiotemporal gait. RESULTS: The results show that there were significantly greater posttest increases in gait velocity (F = -12.09, P = 0.02) and stride length (F = -11.50, P = 0.02), decreases in the values of the 10-m walk test (F = -7.10, P = 0.03) (P < 0.05) and double-limb support period (F = 40.15, P = 0.000), and improvements in gait asymmetry (F = 13.88, P = 0.002) (P < 0.01) in subjects in the lateral walking training group compared with those in the other 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that asymmetric gait patterns in poststroke patients could be improved by receiving additional lateral walking training therapy rather than backward walking training. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) understand the potential benefits of backward walking (BW) and lateral walking (LW) training on improving muscle strength and gait; (2) appreciate the potential value of backward and lateral walking gait training in the treatment of hemiplegic stroke patients; and (3) appropriately incorporate backward and lateral walking gait training into the treatment plan of hemiplegic stroke patients. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this activity for a maximum of 1.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".