MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307628856 · doi:10.1101/2022.10.28.22281102

Corticospinal Responses Following Gait-Specific Training in Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4307628856 on OpenAlexafffund
Yosra Cherni, Alexia Tremblay, Margaux Simon, Floriane Bretheau, Andréanne K. Blanchette, Catherine Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité Laval
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitStroke (engine)NeuroplasticityGait trainingCINAHLModalitiesMedicineMEDLINEWeb of sciencePhysical therapyRehabilitationPsychologyMeta-analysisNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Corticospinal excitability is subject to alterations after stroke. While the reversal of these alterations has been proposed as an underlying mechanism for improvement walking capacity after gait-specific training, this has not yet been clearly demonstrated. Therefore, the objective of this review is to evaluate the effect of gait-specific training on corticospinal excitability in stroke survivors. Design Systematic review of the literature Methods We conducted an electronic database search in four databases ( i.e ., Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science) in June 2022. Two authors independently screened and selected all studies that investigated the effect of gait-specific training in post-stroke individuals on variables such as motor-evoked potential amplitude, motor threshold, map size, latency, and corticospinal silent period. Results Nineteen studies investigating the effect of gait-specific training on corticospinal excitability were included. Some studies showed an increased MEP amplitude (7/16 studies), a decreased latency (5/7studies), a decreased motor threshold (4/8 studies), an increased map size (2/3 studies) and a decreased cortical silent period (1/2 study) after gait-specific training. No change has been reported in term of short interval intracortical inhibition after training. Five studies did not report any significant effect after gait-specific training on corticospinal excitability. Conclusion The results of this systematic review suggest that gait-specific training modalities can drive neuroplastic adaptation among stroke survivors. However, given the methodological disparity of the included studies, further clinical trials with better methodological quality are needed to draw conclusions. Hence, the findings from this review can serve as a rationale for future studies and continued efforts in investigating the effects of gait-specific training on the central nervous system.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→