Oxygen Cost During Walking in Individuals With Stroke: Hemiparesis Versus Cerebellar Ataxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Understanding the factors that limit mobility in stroke patients is fundamental for proposing appropriate rehabilitation strategies. A high oxygen cost during walking (Cw) has a strong impact on the community ambulation of hemiparetic patients. The Cw in poststroke cerebellar ataxia is poorly evaluated, unlike hemiparetic gait. Objective. To compare the oxygen cost/self-selected walking speed (S) relationship in stroke individuals with cerebellar ataxia or hemiparetic gait. Methods. Thirty-three subjects were included (14 cerebellar stroke, 19 hemispheric stroke), with stroke confirmed by brain imaging and able to walk without human assistance. We measured Cw using the Metamax3B. The relationship between Cw and self-selected walking speed was modelled by logistic regression and then compared between the cerebellar and hemispheric groups. Results. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups for all characteristics of the population, except motor impairments, spasticity, and ataxia ( P < .01). We identified 2 separate Cw/S relationships with different logistic regression equations for the 2 groups. Faster than 0.4 m s −1 , Cw was 30.6% to 39.9% higher in patients with cerebellar stroke in comparison with hemispheric stroke individuals. The Cw was correlated with ataxia ( r = 0.88; P < .001) in the cerebellar group, whereas there was a correlation with motor impairments ( r = −0.61; P < .01), spasticity ( r = 0.59; P < .01), and ataxia ( r = 0.81; P < .01) in hemispheric stroke individuals. Conclusion. The Cw in poststroke cerebellar ataxia is significantly higher compared with hemiparetic patients at an equivalent walking speed. The impact on community walking needs to be explored in stroke survivors with cerebellar 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".