MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386894074 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1245881

Blood pressure trajectory of inpatient stroke rehabilitation patients from the Determining Optimal Post-Stroke Exercise (DOSE) trial over the first 12 months post-stroke

2023· article· en· W4386894074 on OpenAlexafffund
Stanley Hung, Christopher Tierney, Tara D. Klassen, Amy Schneeberg, Mark Bayley, Sean P. Dukelow, Michael D. Hill, Andrei V. Krassioukov, Sepideh Pooyania, Marc J. Poulin, Jennifer Yao, Janice J. Eng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of TorontoVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCStrongHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Blood pressureRehabilitationPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAerobic exerciseInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background High blood pressure (BP) is the primary risk factor for recurrent strokes. Despite established clinical guidelines, some stroke survivors exhibit uncontrolled BP over the first 12 months post-stroke. Furthermore, research on BP trajectories in stroke survivors admitted to inpatient rehabilitation hospitals is limited. Exercise is recommended to reduce BP after stroke. However, the effect of high repetition gait training at aerobic intensities (>40% heart rate reserve; HRR) during inpatient rehabilitation on BP is unclear. We aimed to determine the effect of an aerobic gait training intervention on BP trajectory over the first 12 months post-stroke. Methods This is a secondary analysis of the Determining Optimal Post-Stroke Exercise (DOSE) trial. Participants with stroke admitted to inpatient rehabilitation hospitals were recruited and randomized to usual care (n = 24), DOSE1 (n = 25; >2,000 steps, 40–60% HRR for >30 min/session, 20 sessions over 4 weeks), or DOSE2 (n = 25; additional DOSE1 session/day) groups. Resting BP [systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP)] was measured at baseline (inpatient rehabilitation admission), post-intervention (near inpatient discharge), 6- and 12-month post-stroke. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine the effects of group and time (weeks post-stroke) on SBP, DBP and hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg; ≥130/80 mmHg, if diabetic), controlling for age, stroke type, and baseline history of hypertension. Results No effect of intervention group on SBP, DBP, or hypertension was observed. BP increased from baseline to 12-month post-stroke for SBP (from [mean ± standard deviation] 121.8 ± 15.0 to 131.8 ± 17.8 mmHg) and for DBP (74.4 ± 9.8 to 78.5 ± 10.1 mmHg). The proportion of hypertensive participants increased from 20.8% (n = 15/72) to 32.8% (n = 19/58). These increases in BP were statistically significant: an effect [estimation (95%CI), value of p] of time was observed on SBP [0.19 (0.12–0.26) mmHg/week, p < 0.001], DBP [0.09 (0.05–0.14) mmHg/week, p < 0.001], and hypertension [OR (95%CI): 1.03 (1.01–1.05), p = 0.010]. A baseline history of hypertension was associated with higher SBP by 13.45 (8.73–18.17) mmHg, higher DBP by 5.57 (2.02–9.12) mmHg, and 42.22 (6.60–270.08) times the odds of being hypertensive at each timepoint, compared to those without. Conclusion Blood pressure increased after inpatient rehabilitation over the first 12 months post-stroke, especially among those with a history of hypertension. The 4-week aerobic gait training intervention did not influence this trajectory.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Neurology→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→