RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTICIPATION IN DAILY LIFE ACTIVITIES AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN STROKE SURVIVORS: A PROTOCOL FOR A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSES-BASED DATA SYNTHESIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Stroke survivors undertake low levels of physical activity and participation in daily life activities, but there are no reviews on the relationship between physical activity and participation. This systematic review and meta-analyses-based data synthesis will aim to cross-sectionally and longitudinally describe and estimate the relationship between participation in daily life activities and physical activity in stroke survivors. Methods and analysis This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Six databases (PudMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Rehabilitation & Sport Medicine Source) will be searched using terms grouped into three categories: stroke, physical activity, and participation in daily life activities. Observational and experimental studies assessing participation and physical activity levels in adult stroke survivors in English or Spanish will be included. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed independently by 2 investigators, with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Study and sample characteristics, and physical activity and participation outcome data will be extracted. Additionally, if available, repeated measures and correlation values between physical activity and participation outcomes will be extracted. The Hedges-Olkin method will be used for pooling correlation values and a random-effects meta-analysis following restricted maximum likelihood estimation for pooling effect sizes of those studies prospectively assessing the same measures of participation and physical activity. Subgroup analyses will be performed if a sufficient number of studies are found. Heterogeneity between studies results will be analyzed using I 2 statistics, and publication bias will be examined using funnel plots and Egger’s tests. Discussion This will be the first systematic review with meta-analysis-based data synthesis to provide information on the relationship between physical activity and participation in stroke survivors. Findings are likely to inform, the design of health prevention protocols and the development of healthy behavior change interventions.
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 | 0.116 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.008 |
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".