"5 Year Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Results of the Patient with Miller Fisher Syndrome"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Miller-Fisher syndrome (MFS) is characterized by gait ataxia, external ophtalmoplegia and areflexia and thought as an uncommon variant of Guillain Barre syndrome. Miller-Fisher syndrome is observed in about 5-8% of all Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS) cases. In MFS patients, spontaneous improvement was observed in the first 3 months and these improvements were started by the 2nd week.Methods: This case was referred to physiotherapy and rehabilitation program at the 4th week since the appropriate medical treatments were unsuccessful after the attack. The patient was evaluated generally before physiotherapy program, and muscle length, strength loss, deep tendon reflexes, postural impairments and daily difficult activities and positions were assessed. Besides, the desired daily activities were identified by The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Treatment program was adjusted according to the patient and changes during treatment period were observed. Physiotherapy program included classical physiotherapy methods: posture correction, correction of short muscles, muscle strengthening, flexibility increase, balance/coordination, sitting and standing functions and walking improvement and climbing up stairs.Results: After the treatment, lower extremity muscle shortness decreased and muscle strength, standing on one foot duration, independent walk speed increased in time. Before treatment, he could not climbing upstairs, but it was achieved 1 year after the treatment. Berg balance score increased in time and his most desired activities by COPM (10/10) were could be performed after the treatment.Conclusion: The case improved with physiotherapy and rehabilitation program gradually with years.In the treatment of MFS patients, physiotherapy and rehabilitation being part of the treatment will be useful.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".