Higher Doses Improve Walking Recovery During Stroke Inpatient Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We investigated the effect of higher therapeutic exercise doses on walking during inpatient rehabilitation, typically commencing 1 to 4 weeks poststroke. METHODS: This phase II, blinded-assessor, randomized controlled trial recruited from 6 Canadian inpatient rehabilitation units, between 2014 and 2018. Subjects (n=75; 25/group) were randomized into: control (usual care) physical therapy: typically, 1 hour, 5 days/week; Determining Optimal Post-Stroke Exercise (DOSE1): 1 hour, 5 days/week, more than double the intensity of Control (based on aerobic minutes and walking steps); and DOSE2: 2 hours, 5 days/week, more than quadruple the intensity of Control, each for 4 weeks duration. The primary outcome, walking endurance at completion of the 4-week intervention (post-evaluation), was compared across these groups using linear regression. Secondary outcomes at post-evaluation, and longitudinal outcomes at 6 and 12-month evaluations, were also analyzed. RESULTS: =0.03) demonstrated greater walking endurance compared with Control at the post-evaluation. Significant improvements were also observed with DOSE2 in gait speed (5-m walk), and both DOSE groups in quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) compared with Control. Longitudinal analyses revealed that improvements in walking endurance from the DOSE intervention were retained during the 1-year follow-up period over usual care. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first preliminary evidence that patients with stroke can improve their walking recovery and quality of life with higher doses of aerobic and stepping activity within a critical time period for neurological recovery. Furthermore, walking endurance benefits achieved from a 4-week intervention are retained over the first-year poststroke. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01915368.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".