The Impact of Cognitive Function on Virtual Reality Intervention for Upper Extremity Rehabilitation of Patients With Subacute Stroke: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial With 6-Month Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is among the leading causes of long-term disability worldwide. Motor impairments after stroke not only impact the individuals quality of life but also lay substantial burdens on the society. Motor planning is a key component of cognitive function that impacts motor control. Hand movements such as grasping or reaching to grasp require the application of correct force and the coordination of multiple limb segments. Successful completion of hand motor task requires a certain degree of cognitive function to anticipate the requirement of the task. Cognitive function may thus be a confounding factor to rehabilitation outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the impact of cognitive function on functional outcomes in people with subacute stroke after VR intervention. METHODS: Patients with stroke were first stratified into cognitively normal (CN) and cognitively impaired (CI), followed by allocation to the VR or control group (CG). Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Barthel Index (BI), and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) were recorded at baseline, 3 weeks after the intervention, and 3 and 6 months after the intervention. The between-group and within-group differences were assessed by repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The between-group comparison indicated that FMA-UE, BI, and IADL (time effect P<.001 for all) scores improved significantly in both groups after the intervention. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that FMA-UE, BI, and IADL (time effect P<.001 for all) were significantly different in each subgroup after the intervention. For BI score, the ANOVA results showed obvious interaction effects (treatment × time × cognitive effect, P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: VR intervention was as effective as traditional conventional therapy in improving upper limb function regardless of the cognitive functional level. Patients with stroke with impaired cognitive function may gain more improvement in upper limb function and independency in performing activities of daily living after a VR-based intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-IOC-15006064; https://tinyurl.com/4c9vkrrn.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".