Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy with Low-Energy Flux Density Treatment Applied to Hemiplegia Patients on Somatosensory Functions and Spatiotemporal Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to investigate the efect of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) applied to patients with hemiplegia on somatosensory data, spatiotemporal parameters, posture, and muscle tone. Methods: This was a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Patients were randomised within pairs to either the experimental (ESWT) group (n=20) or the control group (n=20). All patients participated in the same conventional stroke rehabilitation program for 60 minutes of treatment a day, 5 times a week for 6 weeks (30 sessions). Patients assigned to the ESWT group received additional ESWT over the plantar fascia 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score, Posture Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS), spatiotemporal parameters, Semmes–Weinstein monofilament (SWM) test, and vibration sensation test (VST) were performed in all participant before and after treatment. Results: In the ESWT and control groups, statistically, significant diferences were obtained in the posttreatment analysis than pre-treatment. Significant diferences were found in foot angle, step cycle duration, swing phase, cadence, gait cycle distance, and VST values after ESWT treatment (P < .01). Conclusion: When combined with a neurological rehabilitation program, it was determined that ESWT applied to the plantar face of the foot in individuals with hemiplegia increased somatosensory functions and was more successful in developing postural control and balance. Cite this article as: Deniz G, Bilek F, Gulkesen A, Cakir M. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy with low-energy flux density treatment applied to hemiplegia patients on somatosensory functions and spatiotemporal parameters. Eurasian J Med., 2024;56(1):61-68.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".