A Case of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Childhood Stroke Hyperkinesis: A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Some conditions within specific populations are so rare rigorous evidence is unavailable. Childhood hyperkinesis is one example, yet presents an opportunity to examine sensation's contribution to motor function. METHODS: The patient experienced functional difficulty from hyperkinesis as a result of childhood stroke. Home-based passive neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) was implemented an hour/day, six days/week, over 6 weeks (36 hours). Clinical and robotic measures (Assisting Hand Assessment, Box and Block Test, Jebsen Taylor Test of Hand Function, Kinarm) were administered before and after the intervention and at 9 months. RESULTS: NMES was feasible and well tolerated. Clinically important gains of arm function were maintained at 9 months. Robotic measures showed improved hyperkinesis, namely reduced movement segmentation and improved target approximation, in addition to improved proprioceptive function after NMES. CONCLUSION: This case study illustrates the use of NMES within a previously unexplored population and highlights the potential importance of sensory systems to motor gains.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".