Post-Stroke Lateropulsion: Resolution and Function After Discharge From Inpatient Rehabilitation – A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A person with post-stroke lateropulsion pushes their body toward their hemiparetic side and/or resists accepting weight onto their nonparetic side. Research findings regarding long-term persistence of lateropulsion and its association with function are lacking. This study reports associations between lateropulsion severity (Four Point Pusher Score - 4PPS) and functional outcome (Functional Independence Measure - FIM) at three months after discharge. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 41 consecutive admissions to a stroke rehabilitation unit. Lateropulsion severity and FIM were measured at admission, discharge and three-month follow-up. Lateropulsion status at discharge, stroke laterality, ongoing physiotherapy after discharge, and demographic variables (age and sex) were tested for association with FIM change over the follow-up period. Results: Complete data were available for 38 participants. Among these, 17 (44.7%) showed lateropulsion (4PPS ≥ 1) on admission, 9 (23.7%) showed persistent lateropulsion on discharge, and 7 (18.4%) showed persistent lateropulsion at three month follow-up. Improved functional status (FIM score) was seen at follow-up in those discharged with lateropulsion who had right-sided lesions but not in those with left-sided lesions. Conclusions: Lateropulsion can continue to resolve after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Larger cohort studies are needed to further explore associations between persistent lateropulsion and long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".