Don’t Bury Functional Electrical Stimulation Too Fast! An Introspection Based on Gait Improvement after an Ecological 6-Month Training Program at Home for a Stroke Survivor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foot drop is a common disability in post-stroke patients and represents a challenge for the clinician. To date, Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) combined with conventional rehabilitation is the gold standard of rehabilitation management. AFO has a palliative mechanical action without actively restoring the associated neural function. Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES), consisting in stimulation of the peroneal nerve pathway, represents an alternative approach. By providing a FES device (Bioness L-300, BIONESS, USA) for 6 months to a post-stroke 22-year-old woman with a foot drop, our goal was to quantify its potential benefit on walking capacity. Gait parameters and the temporal evolution of the speed were collected with a specific connected sole device (Feet Me®) during the 10-meter walking, the Time Up and Go, and the 6-minute walking tests with AFO, FES or without any device (NO). As a result, the walking speed changes on 10-meters were clinically significant with an increase from baseline to 6 months in AFO and FES conditions (+0.14m-1 and +0.36m-1), without any changes in NO condition. In addition, speed decreased at about 4-minutes of the 6-minute walking test in NO and AFO conditions, while speed increased in FES conditions at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months. Monitoring gait speed in an endurance test after an ecological rehabilitation training program helps to examine walking performance in post-stroke patients and to propose a specific rehabilitation program depending on a fatigue threshold.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".