GAIT SYMMETRY AFTER STROKE: DO CEREBRAL HEMISPHERES INFLUENCE EQUALLY?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke responds to a high death rate and is the world major impairment cause. The risk of going through this condition increases 22% after the age of 55 years and increases further 13% every 5 years. The brain damage brings loss of selective muscle control and primitive locomotor patterns may arise to reinforce stability. This adaptation causes asymmetry and is related to the constant postural balance compensation need. It is known that the cerebral hemispheres have different motor tasks. The right one is responsible for the motor control while the left one controls the spacial orientation. The aim of this cross-sectional 3D gait analysis study was to assess stride width and gait speed symmetry among stroke survivors (SS), using the Symmetry Index (SI), and compare those with left (LBD) from those with right brain damage (RBD). A sample of 32 SS (47yo±17,32) and 32 able-bodied (25,09yo±3,77) were divided in three groups: LBD (16, 43,87yo±17,90), RBD (18, 49,76yo±16,83) and Able-bodied (32). Results showed less stride width symmetry and slower gait (0,5m/s±0,2) at RBD while LBD symmetry was not different from Able-bodied (p=0,074). The LBD group showed better recovery and motor compensation bringing their symmetry next to those able-bodied. Less stride width asymmetry leads to less center of mass sway and benefits dynamic postural balance. The more asymmetrical LBD group showed a slower gait as a compensation. Differences in symmetry bring diferente level of stability challenges. It is important to keep that in mind when managing stroke survivors in rehabilitation programmes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".