Effects of the different intensities of task-oriented training on the upper extremity motor function and self-care ability of stroke survivors: study protocol for a multiarm parallel-group randomised controlled trial in a tertiary hospital in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although task-oriented training (TOT) may provide added therapeutic value to stroke survivors, current TOT guidance offers insufficient advice on standardisation, particularly choices of intensity, for clinical practice. Therefore, this study aims to explore the effects of different intensities of TOT on motor function and self-care ability of stroke survivors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This randomised controlled clinical trial will recruit 72 participants from a tertiary hospital, diagnosed with decreased self-care ability and upper limb motor dysfunction post-stroke. All participants will be randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups or the control group to undergo intervention for 8 weeks. The participants in the control group (n=18) will receive traditional occupational therapy, while those in the experimental groups will receive different intensities of TOT (50%, 75% and 100% intensity for groups A, B and C, respectively). This protocol designed a more innovative and optimised TOT programme to explore the optimal intensity of TOT on stroke survivors. The primary outcome is Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, and the secondary outcomes include Modified Barthel Index, Wolf Motor Function Test and Motor Activity Log. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University Ethics Committee approved the medical and ethical protocol for this study (LW2022015). All participants will sign an informed consent form. The results will be presented in scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2200056390.
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 | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
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".