The Efficacy of Integrated Rehabilitation for Post-Stroke Anxiety: Study Protocol for a Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Post-stroke anxiety (PSA) remains a challenging medical problem. Integrated rehabilitation involves a combination of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western conventional rehabilitation techniques. Theoretically, integrated rehabilitation is likely to have significant advantages in treating PSA. Nevertheless, the therapeutic effect of integrated rehabilitation needs to be verified based on large-scale trials with sound methodology. Thus, the aim of this trial is to assess the efficacy and safety of integrated rehabilitation on PSA. Methods: The study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 188 PSA patients from four clinical centers in China. Eligible participants will be randomly divided into the integrated rehabilitation group or the standard care group. Participants in the integrated rehabilitation group will receive a combination of TCM and Western conventional rehabilitation methods, including acupuncture, repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation, traditional Chinese herbal medicine, and standard care. The primary outcome will be the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). The secondary outcomes will include the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale, the simplified Fugl-Meyer Assessment of motor function (FMA) scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Outcome measurements will be performed at baseline, at the end of the 4-week treatment and the 8-week follow-up. Conclusion: Results of this trial will ascertain the efficacy and safety of integrated rehabilitation on PSA, thereby providing evidence regarding integrated rehabilitation strategies for treating PSA. It will also promote up-to-date evidence for patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05147077.
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 | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".