A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL ON THE EFFECTS OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY INTERVENTIONS USING PATIENT-CENTERED ROBOT-ASSISTED REHABILITATION FOR FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT IN SUBACUTE STROKE PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research study was to investigate the effect of patient-centered robot-assisted intervention for upper limb function improvement in stroke patients. Design: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Intervention: Subjectively preferred areas of need for performing daily activities were identified by pre-interviewing and applied as target goals in the experimental group using a robotic device. Control-1 underwent a program focused on the robot system involving movements of upper limb joints. Control-2 participated in a conventional rehabilitation program. Methods: Forty-five participants engaged in 60 min of daily therapy, five times weekly for 3 weeks. The experimental group used the Canadian occupational performance measure (COPM) to identify subjectively preferred “patient-centered” focus needed areas to perform robotic device aided daily activities. Control-1 used a robot device-focused rehabilitation involving upper limb joint movements. Control-2 participated in conventional rehabilitation. Pre-post intervention measurements of hand, grip, power, and upper limb ROM were acquired by FMA-UE, MFT, and K-MBI. Results: A significant increase of function in the experimental group was observed in each subclass of function and activities of daily living (ADL) performance. Control-1 showed an increase in function without ADL improvement. Control-2 showed an increase in ADL and proximal areas of upper limb function without an increase in other areas. Conclusion: The “patient-centered” approach significantly improved upper limb function and ADL performance compared to “robot-centered” rehabilitation. Further studies are warranted to confirm these results and for generalizability in clinical application.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".