Impacts of a lower limb exoskeleton robot on the muscle strength of tibialis anterior muscle in stroke patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to explore the impact of a proposed lower limb exoskeleton robot on the muscle strength of the tibialis anterior muscle in stroke patients. Firstly, 24 patients with stroke hemiplegia were divided into the robot group and the control group according to a random number table. Both groups received conventional rehabilitation treatments. Moreover, the robot group took the walking training with UG0210, a lower limb exoskeleton walking rehabilitation device developed by the Hangzhou RoboCT Technology Development Co., Ltd., once per day, 30 minutes per time, a total of 20 times of treatment. The control group took the conventional rehabilitation walking training, once per day, 30 mins per time, a total of 20 times of treatment. At the beginning of the trial, the manual muscle strength test (MMT) was used to assess the pre-trial muscle strength within the trial cycle. The efficacy of the two groups was compared. Results The muscle strength of the tibialis anterior muscle was higher than that without treatments in both groups (P<0.05). The curative effect of the robot group was better than that of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusions With the help of the designed lower limb exoskeleton robot, both tibialis anterior muscle strength and lower limb motor function of stroke patients were improved compared to the control group. The comparison shows the attractive potential and value of the robot assisted rehabilitation.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it