MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297610027 · doi:10.33920/med-14-2208-03

Study of the efficacy of comprehensive rehabilitation of fine motor skills in patients after ischemic stroke, using hardware technology with biofeedback

2022· article· en· W4297610027 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. V. Sidyakina, Ksenya V. Lupanovа, Н. Б. Корчажкина, Mikhaĭlova Aa, Т В Шаповаленко, Е. С. Конева

Bibliographic record

VenueFizioterapevt (Physiotherapist) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRivermead post-concussion symptoms questionnairePhysical medicine and rehabilitationActivities of daily livingPhysical therapyRehabilitationBiofeedbackStroke (engine)Barthel indexMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the current data on the importance of applying a multimodal approach including hardware techniques with biofeedback in restoring fine motor skills of the hand in patients after ischemic stroke in the early recovery period. The results of the combined use of peripheral magnetic stimulation (Magstim Rapid) with active training on the Hand Tutor device with biofeedback are described on the example of a clinical case. The efficiency of the complex approach was evaluated according to basic scales of neurological deficit: the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), the modified Rankin Scale, the Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living, the Rivermead Activities of Daily Living Scale, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA). We also performed a quantitative assessment of motor deficits in the affected limb before and after application of the technique, using the MediTutor software. Based on the results of the study, a decrease in both neurological and motor deficits in the affected limb was revealed; however, further study of the effectiveness of the method with the selection of parameters and duration of therapy is necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFizioterapevt (Physiotherapist)Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207