MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800436368 · doi:10.1177/1545968318766663

High-Intensity Interval Training After Stroke: An Opportunity to Promote Functional Recovery, Cardiovascular Health, and Neuroplasticity

2018· review· en· W2800436368 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Crozier, Marc Roig, Janice J. Eng, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Joyce Fung, Michelle Ploughman, Damian M. Bailey, Shane N. Sweet, Nicholas Giacomantonio, Alexander Thiel, Michael Trivino, Ada Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationDalhousie UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-intensity interval trainingCardiorespiratory fitnessDeconditioningInterval trainingStroke (engine)MedicineNeuroplasticityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPhysical therapyCardiovascular fitnessStroke recoveryAerobic exercisePhysical fitness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Stroke is the leading cause of adult disability. Individuals poststroke possess less than half of the cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) as their nonstroke counterparts, leading to inactivity, deconditioning, and an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Preserving cardiovascular health is critical to lower stroke risk; however, stroke rehabilitation typically provides limited opportunity for cardiovascular exercise. Optimal cardiovascular training parameters to maximize recovery in stroke survivors also remains unknown. While stroke rehabilitation recommendations suggest the use of moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) to improve CRF, neither is it routinely implemented in clinical practice, nor is the intensity always sufficient to elicit a training effect. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has emerged as a potentially effective alternative that encompasses brief high-intensity bursts of exercise interspersed with bouts of recovery, aiming to maximize cardiovascular exercise intensity in a time-efficient manner. HIIT may provide an alternative exercise intervention and invoke more pronounced benefits poststroke. OBJECTIVES: To provide an updated review of HIIT poststroke through ( a) synthesizing current evidence; ( b) proposing preliminary considerations of HIIT parameters to optimize benefit; ( c) discussing potential mechanisms underlying changes in function, cardiovascular health, and neuroplasticity following HIIT; and ( d) discussing clinical implications and directions for future research. RESULTS: Preliminary evidence from 10 studies report HIIT-associated improvements in functional, cardiovascular, and neuroplastic outcomes poststroke; however, optimal HIIT parameters remain unknown. CONCLUSION: Larger randomized controlled trials are necessary to establish ( a) effectiveness, safety, and optimal training parameters within more heterogeneous poststroke populations; (b) potential mechanisms of HIIT-associated improvements; and ( c) adherence and psychosocial outcomes.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations154
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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