Paired associative stimulation improves motor function in the upper extremity in chronic incomplete spinal cord injury: a corroborative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To corroborate findings suggesting that spinally targeted paired associative stimulation improves upper extremity motor function in chronic incomplete spinal cord injury. DESIGN: Prospective interventional study. SUBJECTS: Five adults with chronic tetraplegia. METHODS: Participants received paired associative stimulation, combining peripheral nerve stimulation and navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation towards 1 arm (16 1-h sessions during 4 consecutive weeks, targeting the 3 large nerves). Manual muscle testing (MMT) was performed in 23 muscles in each arm, at 3 time points (pre-stimulation, t0; the week following the stimulation period, t1; and 4-5 weeks post-stimulation, t2). Additionally, grip strength and changes in the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure were assessed. RESULTS: The mean improvement in manual muscle testing scores in the targeted extremity was +0.49 at t1 (p = 0.078) and +0.55 at t2 (p = 0.062). Grip strength in the stimulated extremity increased by 3.2 kg at t1 and 3.4 kg at t2, and in the non-targeted extremity by 2.2 and 3.6 kg, respectively. Performance and satisfaction increased by 2.1/2.4 points at t1, and by 2.0/1.9 points at t2. CONCLUSION: Paired associative stimulation improved motor function: at the group level, MMT of the stimulated hand (p = 0.06) and non-stimulated hand (p = 0.04). Most participants achieved clinically relevant improvement. Thus, the results corroborate prior studies. The method may complement conventional rehabilitation for improving upper extremity function in incomplete tetraplegia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".