Hyperbaric oxygen and focused rehabilitation program: a feasibility study in improving upper limb motor function after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroplasticity and recovery after stroke can be enhanced by a rehabilitation program pertinent to upper limb motor function exercise and mental imagery (EMI) as well as hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). We assessed feasibility and safety of the combined approach utilizing both HBOT and EMI, and to derive preliminary estimates of its efficacy. In this randomized controlled trial, 27 patients with upper extremity hemiparesis at 3–48 months after stroke were randomized to receive either a complementary rehabilitation program of HBOT-EMI (intervention group), or EMI alone (control group). Feasibility and safety were assessed as total session attendance, duration of sessions, attrition rates, missing data, and intervention-related adverse events. Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed with both objective tools and self-reported measures at baseline, 8 weeks (end of treatment), and 12-weeks follow-up. Session attendance, duration, and attrition rate did not differ between the groups; there were no serious adverse events. Compared with baseline, there were significant sustained improvements of objective and subjective outcomes’ measures in the intervention group, and a single improvement in an objective measure in the control group. Between-group outcome comparisons were not statistically significant. This study demonstrated that the combination HBOT-EMI was a safe and feasible approach in patients recovering from chronic stroke. There were also trends for improved motor function of the affected upper limb after the treatments. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT02666469. Novelty HBOT combined with an upper limb exercise and mental imagery rehabilitation program is feasible and safe in chronic stroke patients. This combined approach showed trends for improved functional recovery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".