Corticospinal Responses Following Gait-Specific Training in Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corticospinal excitability is subject to alterations after stroke. While the reversal of these alterations has been proposed as an underlying mechanism for improved 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. We conducted an electronic database search in four databases (i.e., Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science) in June 2022. Two authors screened in an independent way all the studies and selected those that investigated the effect of gait-specific training on variables such as motor-evoked potential amplitude, motor threshold, map size, latency, and corticospinal silent period in stroke survivors. 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 terms of short interval intracortical inhibition after training. Five studies did not report any significant effect after gait-specific training on corticospinal excitability. 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, additional clinical trials of better methodological quality are needed to establish conclusions. The results of this review can therefore be used to develop future studies to better understand 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".