MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921506542 · doi:10.1002/pmrj.12154

Effectiveness of High‐Intensity Interval Training for Fitness and Mobility Post Stroke: A Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2921506542 on OpenAlex
Joshua Wiener, Amanda McIntyre, Scott Janssen, Jeffrey TY Chow, Cristina Batey, Robert Teasell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern UniversityParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-intensity interval trainingCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicinePhysical therapyBerg Balance ScaleInterval trainingCINAHLPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Timed Up and Go testBalance (ability)Psychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in improving fitness and mobility post stroke. TYPE: Systematic review. LITERATURE SURVEY: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched for articles published in English up to January 2018. METHODOLOGY: Studies were included if the sample was adult human participants with stroke, the sample size was ≥3, and participants received >1 session of HIIT. Study and participant characteristics, treatment protocols, and results were extracted. SYNTHESIS: Six studies with a total of 140 participants met inclusion criteria: three randomized controlled trials and three pre-post studies. HIIT protocols ranged 20 to 30 minutes per session, 2 to 5 times per week, and 2 to 8 weeks in total. HIIT was delivered on a treadmill in five studies and a stationary bicycle in one study. Regarding fitness measures, HIIT produced significant improvements in peak oxygen consumption compared to baseline, but the effect was not significant compared to moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE). Regarding mobility measures, HIIT produced significant improvements on the 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC), Timed Up and Go Test, and Rivermead Motor Assessment compared to baseline. The effect of HIIT was significant compared to MICE on the 10MWT and FAC but not on the 6MWT or BBS. CONCLUSIONS: There is preliminary evidence that HIIT may be an effective rehabilitation intervention for improving some aspects of cardiorespiratory fitness and mobility post stroke. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.304 · 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