MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887050057 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2823-0

Effects of aerobic training on physical activity in people with stroke: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2887050057 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa Tavares Aguiar, Sylvie Nadeau, Raquel Rodrigues Britto, Luci Fuscaldi Teixeira‐Salmela, Júlia Caetano Martins, Christina Danielli Coelho de Morais Faria

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineAerobic exerciseStroke (engine)Physical therapyRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationPhysical fitnessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHeart rateBlood pressureInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-stroke physical inactivity is explained by several factors related to the stroke, which have been suggested as the causes and consequences of functional declines and health problems. Therefore, it is important to increase physical activity levels and reduce the time spent in low-energy expenditure activities after a stroke. Since the maintenance of cardiorespiratory fitness is a significant predictor of physical activity levels post-stroke, it may be important to investigate whether aerobic training is effective in increasing physical activity levels and reducing the time spent in low-energy expenditure activities in this population. The efficacy of aerobic training on these variables is not well known. The primary objective of this trial will be to investigate the effects of aerobic treadmill training on physical activity levels and on time spent in low-energy expenditure activities in people with stroke. The secondary aim will be to evaluate the effects of the training on cardiorespiratory fitness, endurance, depression, mobility, quality of life, and participation. A randomized controlled trial, with blinded assessments, will be performed in a community-based setting. Altogether, 22 adults with a diagnosis of stroke (>6 months) who are sedentary or insufficiently active will be included. Participants will be randomly assigned to either: (1) aerobic treadmill training (experimental group, at 60–80% of their heart rate reserve) or (2) walking outside (control group, below 40% of heart rate reserve). Both groups will attend 40-min training sessions, three times per week over 12 weeks, in groups of two to four participants, with a trained physiotherapist. Primary outcomes are physical activity levels and time spent in low-energy expenditure activities (Multi-sensor SenseWear Mini® and Human Activity Profile). Secondary outcomes are cardiorespiratory fitness (peak oxygen uptake VO2peak and ventilatory threshold), endurance, depression, mobility, quality of life, and participation. The effects of the training will be analyzed from the collected data using intention to treat. Between-group differences will be measured by two-way repeated measures ANOVA, considering the baseline, post-training, and 4-week follow-up. The results of this trial will likely provide valuable new information on the effects of aerobic treadmill training on physical activity levels and on time spent in low-energy expenditure activities of individuals with stroke, through changes in cardiorespiratory fitness. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02798237 . Registered on 13 June 2016.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.350 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207