The effect of a modified elastic band orthosis on gait and balance in stroke survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gait is crucial for independent living for stroke survivors and assistive devices have been developed to support gait performance. Ankle foot orthosis (AFOs) are commonly provided to stroke survivors to prevent foot drop during walking. However, previous studies have reported limitations of AFOs including them being too heavy, creating skin irritation, and being a stigma of disability. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to compare the gait and balance improvement between elastic band orthosis (EBOs) and AFOs. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study design. METHODS: The AFOs and EBOs were provided to 17 stroke survivors, and changes in gait and balance were assessed compared to barefoot (control). Gait spatiotemporal parameters were measured using the zebris-FDM-Rehawalk® system, and balance ability was evaluated using the time up and go test (TUG). Satisfaction with the EBOs was determined using the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST2.0) questionnaire. RESULTS: The EBO showed significant differences in; gait speed, cadence, stride length, stride time, step length unaffected side, stance phase and swing phase on the affected side, and pre-swing on the unaffected side, and balance performance (TUG) (p<0.05) when compared to the AFO and control conditions. The participants were quite satisfied with the EBOs with QUEST2.0 scores greater than 4 out of 5. CONCLUSIONS: EBOs could be provided to stroke survivors given their acceptability and properties to improve gait and balance. The EBO used in this study offered clinically important improvements in gait and balance when compare to AFO and control conditions, and could mitigate against some of the limitations reported in the use of AFOs in 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".