Compositional associations between movement-related behaviours and functional outcomes post-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the associations between the composition of movement-related behaviours (sedentary behaviour, sleep, standing, and stepping) and functional outcomes post-stroke. METHODS: This study included 34 adults with stroke (mean age: 64.6 ± 12.5 years; time since stroke: 3.5 ± 1.1 months) who underwent an 8-week sedentary behaviour intervention. Functional outcomes were assessed using the timed up and go (TUG) and gait speed tests. Compositional data analysis was used to investigate the relationships between movement-related behaviours and functional outcomes. RESULTS: = 0.01) after the 8-week reducing sedentary behaviour intervention. Reallocating ≥ 30 min/day to stepping, while proportionally decreasing other movement-related behaviours, was associated with a significant change in TUG. Similarly, a relative reallocation of ≥ 40 min/day to stepping was associated with a clinically meaningful change in gait speed. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of considering movement-related behaviours in relation to functional outcomes post-stroke. Reallocating at least 30 min per day to stepping, relative to a reduction in other movement-related behaviours, is associated with significant and meaningful change in functional outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".