MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795254904 · doi:10.1177/1545968318765692

Aerobic With Resistance Training or Aerobic Training Alone Poststroke: A Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Clinical Trial

2018· article· en· W2795254904 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan Marzolini, Dina Brooks, Paul Oh, David Jagroop, Bradley J. MacIntosh, Nicole D. Anderson, David A. Alter, Dale Corbett

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBaycrest HospitalHealth Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesOntario Tech UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersOntario Stroke NetworkHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessDeconditioningMedicineAerobic exercisePhysical therapyAerobic capacityRandomized controlled trialVO2 maxStroke (engine)Lean body massInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationHeart rateBlood pressureBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stroke is associated with muscle atrophy and weakness, mobility deficits, and cardiorespiratory deconditioning. Aerobic and resistance training (AT and RT) each have the potential to improve deficits, yet there is limited evidence on the utility of combined training. Objective: To examine the effects of AT+RT versus AT on physiological outcomes in chronic stroke with motor impairments. Methods: Participants (n = 73) were randomized to 6 months of AT (5 d/wk) or AT+RT (3 and 2 d/wk, respectively). Outcomes included those related to body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, mobility (6-minute walk distance [6MWD], sit-to-stand, and stair climb performance), cardiorespiratory fitness (VO 2peak , oxygen uptake at the ventilatory threshold [VO 2VT ]), and muscular strength. Results: A total of 68 (93.2%) participants (age, mean ± SD = 63.7 ± 11.9) completed the study. AT+RT and AT yielded similar and significant improvements in 6MWD (39.9 ± 55.6 vs 36.5 ± 63.7 m, P = .8), VO 2peak (16.4% ± 43.8% vs 15.2% ± 24.7%, P = .9), sit-to-stand time (−2.3 ± 5.1 vs 1.02 ± 9.5 s, P = .05), and stair climb performance (8.2% ± 19.6% vs 7.5% ± 23%, P = .97), respectively. AT+RT produced greater improvements than AT alone for total body lean mass (1.23 ± 2.3 vs 0.27 ± 1.6 kg, P = .039), predominantly trunk ( P = .02) and affected-side limbs ( P = .04), VO 2VT (19.1% ± 26.8% vs 10.5% ± 28.9%, P = .046), and upper- and lower-limb muscular strength ( P < .03, all except affected-side leg). Conclusion: Despite being prescribed 40% less AT, AT+RT resulted in similar and significant improvement in mobility and VO 2peak , superior improvements in VO 2VT and muscular strength, and an almost 5-fold greater increase in lean mass compared with AT. RT is the most neglected exercise component following stroke but should be prescribed with AT for metabolic, cardiorespiratory, and strength recovery.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurorehabilitation and neural repairSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207