MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403119190 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.02.24314819

The Effect of Sensory Therapy on Upper Extremity Functions and Activities of Daily Living in Patients with Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· preprint· en· W4403119190 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammed Rohat Yazıcı, Çiğdem ÇEKMECE

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialChronic strokeSensory systemStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyRehabilitationNeuroscienceInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of intensive sensory therapy on upper extremity functions, daily activity and life quality of stroke survivors. Methods This randomized controlled trial included 30 participants aged between 18 and 80 years, who were divided into a sensory-training group (n = 15) and a control group (n = 15). Both groups received 15 sessions of 30 minutes of physical therapy, occupational therapy, and 20 minutes of activity daily living training for three weeks. The ST group also received intensified sensory therapy during each session. Thumb localization, finger shift, and stereognosis tests were performed in both groups only before the start of intervention. The Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Modified Frenchay Scale, and Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL) were administered before and after intervention. Results Statistically significant differences were observed between the ST group and the control group across all tests, except for the Language, Thinking, and Vision parameters of the SS-QOL. Conclusion These results suggest that sensory therapies applied with conventional interventions increased upper extremity functions, activity daily living performance, participation and quality of life of the stroke survivors. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCTxxxxxx Unique identifier: NCTxxxxx.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→