MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311111675 · doi:10.21860/medflum2022_284700

Procjena učinkovitosti robotike u neurorehabilitaciji gornjih ekstremiteta kod pacijenata nakon moždanog udara

2022· article· hr· W4311111675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tea Schnurrer-Luke-Vrbanić, Ivanka Baniček Šoša, Tomislav Barišić, Matea Bagatin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina Fluminensis · 2022
Typearticle
Languagehr
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGynecologyHumanitiesMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cilj: Analizirati učinkovitost primjene egzoskeletnog robotskog uređaja Armeo Power® (Hocoma, Švicarska) u rehabilitaciji ruke osoba s jednostranim motoričkim ispadom nakon moždanog udara. Ispitanici i metode: U istraživanje koje je provedeno na Zavodu za fizikalnu i rehabilitacijsku medicinu KBC-a Rijeka bilo je uključeno ukupno 20 ispitanika iz stacionarne rehabilitacije. Eksperimentalna skupina (n = 10) uz konvencionalnu terapiju tretirana je i na Armeo Power® uređaju (5 puta tjedno / 4 tjedna; 45 minuta po tretmanu). Istovremeno se kod kontrolne skupine (n = 10) provodila samo konvencionalna terapija. Konvencionalna terapija u objema skupinama bila je vremenski usklađena (5 puta tjedno / 4 tjedna; 45 minuta po tretmanu). Procjenjivale su se motorička funkcija, funkcionalna mjera neovisnosti te prosječno izvođenje i zadovoljstvo izvođenjem okupacije, a procjena se vršila kliničkim ocjenskim ljestvicama. Rezultati: Kod svih kliničkih parametara u ponovljenim mjerenjima zabilježeno je statistički značajno poboljšanje (P = 0,005). Usporedbom između skupina na kraju liječenja nije utvrđena statistički značajna razlika u mjerama motoričke funkcije na FMA (engl. Fugl-Meyer Assessment) skali (P = 0,120) niti funkcionalne neovisnosti na FIM (engl. Functional Independence Measure) skali (P = 0,762). Međutim, zbog značajno bolje motoričke funkcije eksperimentalne skupine na početku, teško je s velikim značajem promatrati usporedbu na kraju liječenja, barem kada je riječ o FMA. Statistički značajna razlika između skupina na kraju liječenja zabilježena je samo u rezultatima COPM-a (engl. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure) (prosječno izvođenje, P = 0,014; prosječno zadovoljstvo, P = 0,022). Zaključci: Dobiveni rezultati ukazuju da terapija uređajem Armeo Power u kombinaciji s konvencionalnom terapijom može poboljšati funkcionalni oporavak nakon moždanog udara, iako su potrebna daljnja istraživanja na većem broju bolesnika.

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)0.013
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicina FluminensisSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207