Review of the effects of soft robotic gloves for activity-based rehabilitation in individuals with reduced hand function and manual dexterity following a neurological event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite limited scientific evidence, there is an increasing interest in soft robotic gloves to optimize hand- and finger-related functional abilities following a neurological event. This review maps evidence on the effects and effectiveness of soft robotic gloves for hand rehabilitation and, whenever possible, patients' satisfaction. A systematized search of the literature was conducted using keywords structured around three areas: technology attributes, anatomy, and rehabilitation. A total of 272 titles, abstracts, and keywords were initially retrieved, and data were extracted out of 13 articles. Six articles investigated the effects of wearing a soft robotic glove and eight studied the effect or effectiveness of an intervention with it. Some statistically significant and meaningful beneficial effects were confirmed with the 29 outcome measures used. Finally, 11 articles also confirmed users' satisfaction with regard to the soft robotic glove, while some articles also noticed an increased engagement in the rehabilitation program with this technology. Despite the heterogeneity across studies, soft robotic gloves stand out as a safe and promising technology to improve hand- and finger-related dexterity and functional performance. However, strengthened evidence of the effects or effectiveness of such devices is needed before their transition from laboratory to clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".