Contribution of reciprocal electrical stimulation across elbow muscles to motor recovery of infants with Erb's Palsy: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of reciprocal electrical stimulation (RES) across elbow flexors and extensors on the reaction of degeneration percentage and motor function in Erb's palsy infants. Forty infants with Erb’s palsy aged between 2-5 months were randomly allocated to one of two equal groups: the control group (A) received standard physical therapy, the study group (B) received traditional physical therapy plus a 15-minute RES through elbow flexors and extensors. For three months, interventions were carried out three times each week. The percentage of reaction of degeneration and motor function were assessed pre- and post-treatment using electromyography and Toronto active motion scale respectively. There was a significantly greater reduction in the percentage of reaction of degeneration and increase in the Toronto active motion scale score in the study group (B) as compared to the control group (A) (p < 0.001, p =0.007 consequently), indicating more improvements following the RES application. Incorporating the RES in the traditional rehabilitation programs for Erb's palsied infants is likely effective in improving motor functions. It is advisable for the pediatric physical therapist to consider such a therapeutic approach in caring for those infants.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".