Determining optimal poststroke exercise: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial investigating therapeutic intensity and dose on functional recovery during stroke inpatient rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: A top priority in stroke rehabilitation research is determining the appropriate exercise dose to optimize recovery. Although more intensive rehabilitation very early after stroke may be deleterious to recovery, inpatient rehabilitation, occurring after acute care, may be a more appropriate setting to assess therapeutic dose on neurological recovery. HYPOTHESIS: Individuals receiving higher intensity and dose exercise programs will yield greater improvements in walking ability over usual inpatient physical therapy care. METHODS AND DESIGN: Seventy-five individuals across seven inpatient rehabilitation sites in Canada will be randomized into one of three treatment programs, each 5 days/week, for four weeks and monitored for exertion (heart rate) and repetitions (step count). STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure is the 6 min walk and secondary outcomes include functional independence, cognitive, and quality-of-life measures. Outcome data will be assessed at four time points. SUMMARY: This trial will contribute to our knowledge of the therapeutic intensity and dose necessary to maximize functional recovery at a very important stage of rehabilitation and neural recovery poststroke.
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 | 0.034 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.012 |
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".