Effects of task-oriented training combined with scapular stabilization exercise on stroke patients’ upper extremity functions and daily living activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify the effects of task-oriented training combined with scapular stabilization exercise on stroke patients’ upper extremity functions and daily living activities. Method: Twenty eight stroke patients were randomly assigned to three groups: a scapular stabilization exercise combined with task-oriented training group(n=9); a scapular stabilization exercise group (n=10); and a task-oriented training group(n=9). All three groups underwent respective intervention methods for 30 minute sessions, 5 times per week for 8 weeks. The upper extremity functions were evaluated via an inertia measurement unit(Point-to-point evaluation test and Circle evaluation test), scapular balance angles, grip strength, and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of upper extremity; daily living activities were evaluated through the Korean version of the modified Barthel index and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Results: The task-oriented training combined with scapular stabilization exercise group was more effective in the improvement of daily living activities than the simple scapular stabilization exercise (p<.05) was, and it was more effective in the improvement of upper extremity functions and daily living activities for simple task-oriented training(p<.05). Conclusion: If the stability of the proximal region of the upper extremities is secured through scapular stabilization exercise and efficient task-oriented training reflecting individuals’ characteristics is applied thereafter, synergy effects of the two interventions can be derived and such a program can be effective in the improvement of upper extremity functions and daily living activities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".