Circadian parameter as a possible indicator of gait performance and daily activity levels in chronic stroke survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke recovery is a critical public health problem. It involves cognitive and physical impairments leading to physical inactivity. In addition, there are also sleep problems and disruption of the circadian rhythm. In this paper, we analyze the relation between cognitive impairments level, walking performance, sleep and circadian parameters of a group of chronic stroke survivors. Five stroke survivors enrolled in the study. The clinical assessments were: cognitive function (MoCA), the 10 meter-walking test (10MWT), and the 6 minutes walking test (6MWT). The circadian rhythm parameters were obtained for at least one week wearing the actimeters. There was a positive correlation between the duration of the main sleep episode and the MoCA scores. There were significant correlations between the 10MWT and 6MWT and the circadian parameters that were positive for most active period (M10), Interdaily stability (IS), Mesor and Amplitude and negative for intradaily variability (IV). Our results indicate that gait speed and resistance are correlated to circadian rhythm synchronization, lower rhythm variability and more defined activity-rest episodes. This preliminary study underscores the importance of including a continuous measure of sleep and activity cycles in the assessment of stroke survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".