Ayurvedic Treatment in the Rehabilitation of Ischemic Stroke Patients in India: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In patients with ischemic stroke, motor and sensory impairments are common and are associated with functional disability. Conventional physiotherapy (CP) is the primary modality of rehabilitation for post-stroke sensorimotor dysfunction. Ayurveda is a commonly practiced alternative system of medicine that offers unique rehabilitative measures for post-stroke recovery. We hypothesize that Ayurvedic rehabilitative treatment (ART) is superior to similar duration CP in improving the sensorimotor recovery of patients with ischemic stroke at 90 days after enrollment. AyuRvedic TrEatment in the Rehabilitation of Ischemic STrOke Patients in India: A Randomized controllEd trial (RESTORE) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm, blinded outcome assessment trial being conducted under the Indian Stroke Clinical Trial (INSTRuCT) Network across the four comprehensive stroke centers in India. Consecutive hemodynamically stable adult patients with their first acute ischemic stroke between 1 and 3 months from stroke onset are being randomized (1:1) into two treatment groups to receive either 1 month of ART or 1 month of CP. The primary outcome measure is the Fugl Meyer Assessment-upper extremity for physical performance at 90 days. The secondary outcomes are the modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, Berg Balance, and SF-36 at 90 days. The safety outcomes include a composite of irreversible morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 140 (70 in each group) patients with ischemic stroke will allow us to detect a minimal clinical important difference of 9.4 (standard deviation) with superiority margin of 5, an attrition rate of 10%, alpha of 5%, and power of 80%. This randomized trial will systematically assess the efficacy and safety of traditional ART compared to CP. The trial has been registered in the Clinical Trial Registry India (CTRI/2018/04/013379).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".