MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794349909 · doi:10.3233/rnn-170792

Rehabilitation of stroke patients with plegic hands: Randomized controlled trial of expanded Constraint-Induced Movement therapy

2018· article· en· W2794349909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gitendra Uswatte, Edward Taub, Mary H. Bowman, Adriana Delgado, Camille Bryson, David M. Morris, Staci McKay, Joydip Barman, Victor W. Mark

Bibliographic record

VenueRestorative Neurology and Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemiparesisConstraint-induced movement therapyMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationStroke (engine)Activities of daily livingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialOrthoticsPlaceboSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of an expanded form of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (eCIMT) that renders CIMT, originally designed for treating mild-to-moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis, suitable for treating severe hemiparesis. METHODS: Twenty-one adults ≥1 year after stroke with severe upper-extremity hemiparesis (with little or no capacity to make movements with the more-affected hand) were randomly assigned to eCIMT (n = 10), a placebo-control procedure (n = 4), or usual care (n = 7). The participants who received usual care were crossed over to eCIMT four months after enrollment. The CIMT protocol was altered to include fitting of orthotics and adaptive equipment, selected neurodevelopmental techniques, and electromyography-triggered functional electrical stimulation. Treatment was given for 15 consecutive weekdays with 6 hours of therapy scheduled daily for the immediate eCIMT group and 3.5 hours daily for the cross-over eCIMT group. RESULTS: At post-treatment, the immediate eCIMT group showed significant gains relative to the combination of the control groups on the Grade-4/5 Motor Activity Log (MAL; mean = 1.5 points, P < 0.001, f = 4.2) and a convergent measure, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM; mean = 2.3, P = 0.014, f = 1.1; f values ≥0.4 are considered large, on the COPM changes ≥2 are considered clinically meaningful). At 1-year follow-up, the MAL gains in the immediate eCIMT group were only 13% less than at post-treatment. The short and long-term outcomes of the crossover eCIMT group were similar to those of the immediate eCIMT group. CONCLUSIONS: This small, randomized controlled trial (RCT) suggests that eCIMT produces a large, meaningful, and persistent improvement in everyday use of the more-affected arm in adults with severe upper-extremity hemiparesis long after stroke. These promising findings warrant confirmation by a large RCT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestorative Neurology and NeuroscienceSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207