Cognitive strategy on upper extremity function for stroke: A randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (CO-OP) is a task-specific training applied using a cognitive behavioral approach to improve performance in daily activities and to enable the patient to overcome limitations related to them. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the CO-OP approach in comparison with task-specific upper extremity training (TUET) on performance related to daily and functional activities in individuals with chronic hemiparetic stroke. METHODS: Forty-nine participants diagnosed with stroke for the first time underwent 30 minutes of either the CO-OP approach or TUET 5 days a week for 4 weeks. We evaluated their performance on the box-and-block test (BBT), Canadian occupational performance measure (COPM), and community integration questionnaire (CIQ) and Wolf motor function test-functional score (WMFT-F) before and after the training. RESULTS: Our results show a significantly improvement in the WMFT-F, COPM-P, COPM-S, BBT, and CIQ scores after training in the CO-OP group, but only COPM-S score was significantly improvement after training in TUET group (p < 0.05). This study also found higher increases in the mean WMFT-F, COPM-P, COPM-S and BBT scores in the CO-OP group than in the TUET group, but CIQ score did not have a significantly higher increase between-group after training. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the CO-OP approach resulted in a positive therapeutic effect on self-selected occupational performance and daily and functional activities in individuals with chronic hemiparetic stroke.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".