Functional electrical stimulation therapy for severe hemiplegia: Randomized control trial revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability. Stroke survivors seldom improve their upper-limb function when their deficit is severe, despite recently developed therapies. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation therapy in improving voluntary reaching and grasping after severe hemiplegia. METHOD: A post hoc analysis of a previously completed randomized control trial ( clinicaltrials.gov , No. NCT00221078) was carried out involving 21 participants with severe upper-limb hemiplegia (i.e., Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity [FMA-UE] ≤ 15) resulting from stroke. FINDINGS: Functional Independence Measure Self-Care subscores increased 22.8 (±6.7) points in the intervention group and 9 (±6.5) in the control group, following 40 hr of equal-intensity therapy. FMA-UE score changes were 27.2 (±13.5) and 5.3 (±11.0) for the intervention and control groups, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: The results may represent the largest upper-limb function improvements in any stroke population to date, especially in those with severe upper-limb deficit.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".