Immediate effects of the respiratory stimulation on ventilation parameters in ischemic stroke survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-stroke brain damage, which affects the central control of respiration, leads to various respiratory disorders. They can be caused by the weakening of the respiratory muscles and chest movements, which can indirectly contribute to an impairment of the ventilation function. The aim of the study is an objective assessment of the effect of a single-session intervention of respiratory stimulation through Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) on chosen respiratory parameters and the following comparison of these changes with a group in which positioning was used (intra- and intergroup comparison). METHODS: This was a randomized interventional study evaluating the respiratory parameters depending on the applied respiratory stimulation in patients after ischemic stroke. The patients qualified to participate in the study were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: PNF-treated group - in which respiratory stimulation through PNF was used, PNF untreated group - in which positioning was used. The research procedure consisted of several stages. First, an interview was conducted with each participant and basic data was collected. Then, spirometry was conducted, after which each patient underwent a single-session intervention according to their assigned group. Finally, the patients were given another spirometry examination. The main outcomes will be to compare the results of a spirometry test (FVC, FEV1, FEV1/ FVC%, PEF) before and after single-session intervention and between groups. RESULTS: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study, 60 patients took part in the measurement. The values of FEV1/FVC% were higher in PNF-treated group than in PNF-untreated group, if the post-intervention measures (P = .04) are considered. The difference between the pre- and post-intervention results of the FEV1/FVC% values in PNF-untreated group was substantially lower than in PNF-treated group (P = .001). CONCLUSION: A single application of respiratory stimulation through PNF positively affect air flow in the respiratory tract. Application of PNF stimulation contributed to an increase in the FEV1/FVC% parameter. However, no positive changes were noted in the other parameters, which would provide proof of the beneficial effect of facilitation on the respiratory system function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".