Home‐based multi‐sensory and proximal strengthening program to improve balance in<scp>Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease Type 1A: A</scp>proof of concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: People with Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease (CMT) frequently report problems with balance, which lead to an increased risk of falls. Evidence is emerging of training interventions to improve balance for people with CMT, but to date all have relied on clinic-based treatment and equipment. This proof-of-concept study explored whether a multi-modal program of proprioceptive rehabilitation and strength training can be delivered at home, to improve balance performance in people with CMT Type 1A. METHODS: Fourteen participants with CMT Type 1A were recruited into this randomized, two-arm study. Baseline assessments included measures of disease severity, posturography, physical function, and patient-reported outcome measurements. All participants received one falls education session. Participants were randomized to either 12 weeks of balance training or 12 weeks of usual activities. The intervention comprised a home-based, multi-sensory balance training and proximal strengthening program, supported by three home visits from a physiotherapist. RESULTS: Thirteen participants completed the study. The intervention was successfully implemented and well tolerated, with high participation levels. Functional measures of balance and walking showed strong effect sizes in favor of the training group. Posturography testing demonstrated moderate improvements in postural stability favoring the intervention group. Inconsistent changes were seen in lower limb strength measures. DISCUSSION: The intervention was feasible to implement and safe, with some evidence of improvement in balance performance. This supports future studies to expand this intervention to larger trials of pragmatic, home-delivered programs through current community rehabilitation services and supported self-management pathways.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".