MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Home-Based Moderate Intensity Cycling in Community Dwelling Individuals With Stroke: Protocol of a Randomised Controlled Study

2023· preprint· en· W4322194721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mats van Mechelen, Dennis Lemmens, Christel Vanroy, Steven Truijen, Wim Saeys

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRivermead post-concussion symptoms questionnairePhysical therapyMedicineStroke (engine)Quality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the feasibility and preliminary effects of a 12-week home-based moderate intensity cycling programme in stroke survivors. Design: Single-blinded, parallel group, Randomised Controlled Trial Setting: Home-based Participants: Participants will be survivors of first-ever stroke and randomly assigned to an Active Cycling Group (ACG) or control group. Intervention: The ACG performed a 12-week home-based cycling programme, three sessions per week. Work intervals were executed at 75% of the maximal heart rate (HRmax), recovery intervals at 50% of HRmax. Work interval duration increased from three ten-minute intervals to 30 minutes continuous cycling. The control group completed a 12-week neurocognitive exercise programme. Main outcome measurements: Primary outcome measures are compliance with training, adherence to protocol and safety as measured by adverse events. Secondary outcome measurements included a: simplified modified Rankin Scale questionnaire (stroke severity), Six-Minute Walking Test (walking ability), Ten-meter Walk Test (walking ability), Rivermead Mobility Index (walking ability), graded submaximal cycling test (exercise capacity), Physical Activity for Individuals with Physical Disability questionnaire (physical activity), EQ-5D-5L (quality of life), Stroke Specific Quality of Life questionnaire (quality of life), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (cognition), General Self-Efficacy Scale (self-efficacy), and Exercise Self-Regulation Questionnaire (self-regulation).

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.009

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→