Efficacy of task-specific circuit training on physical activity levels and mobility of stroke patients: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impaired mobility is related to low physical activity (PA) levels observed after stroke. Therapeutic approaches, such as task-specific circuit training (TSCT), used to improve mobility in individuals with stroke, could also improve PA levels. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of TSCT, focused on both upper (UL) and lower (LL) limbs, in improving PA levels and mobility (primary outcomes), as well as muscle strength, exercise capacity, and quality of life (secondary outcomes) in subjects with stroke. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with 36 subjects with chronic stroke was conducted. Experimental group: TSCT, involving both UL and LL. CONTROL GROUP: global stretching, memory exercises, and education sessions. Both groups received 60 minute sessions/week over 12 weeks. Outcomes were measured at baseline, post-intervention and 16 week follow-up. RESULTS: No changes were found for primary and secondary outcomes (0.11≤p≤0.99), except for quality of life, which improved in the experimental group post-intervention and 16 week follow-up (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: TSCT focused on both UL and LL was not effective on PA levels and mobility of individuals with chronic stroke, however, improvements in quality of life were observed. Since this is the first study to investigate this combined training aimed at improving PA levels, future studies are necessary to better understand the impact of this type of intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".