MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387741630 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2023.1256077

Brain–computer interface treatment for gait rehabilitation in stroke patients

2023· article· en· W4387741630 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Sebastián-Romagosa, Woosang Cho, Rupert Ortner, Sebastian Sieghartsleitner, Tim J. von Oertzen, Kyousuke Kamada, Steven Laureys, Brendan Z. Allison, Christoph Guger

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFondazione Europea Ricerca BiomedicaKoning BoudewijnstichtingFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBrain–computer interfacePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationSpasticityNeuroplasticityMedicineStroke (engine)GaitPhysical therapyElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCI) as rehabilitation tools for chronically ill neurological patients has become more widespread. BCIs combined with other techniques allow the user to restore neurological function by inducing neuroplasticity through real-time detection of motor-imagery (MI) as patients perform therapy tasks. Twenty-five stroke patients with gait disability were recruited for this study. Participants performed 25 sessions with the MI-BCI and assessment visits to track functional changes during the therapy. The results of this study demonstrated a clinically significant increase in walking speed of 0.19 m/s, 95%CI [0.13–0.25], p < 0.001. Patients also reduced spasticity and improved their range of motion and muscle contraction. The BCI treatment was effective in promoting long-lasting functional improvements in the gait speed of chronic stroke survivors. Patients have more movements in the lower limb; therefore, they can walk better and safer. This functional improvement can be explained by improved neuroplasticity in the central nervous system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations39
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207