MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405391819 · doi:10.4103/ijoy.ijoy_112_24

Functional Recovery and Cognitive Improvement in Poststroke Rehabilitation through Integrated Yoga and Naturopathy Intervention

2024· article· en· W4405391819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shweta Mishra, Sriloy Mohanty, Ragini Shrivastava, Monika Pathania

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Yoga · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and HomoeopathyAll-India Institute of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMassagePhysical therapyRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)NaturopathyMedicineIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionCognitionStroke (engine)AnxietyDepression (economics)PsychiatryAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite advancements in acute medical management, poststroke rehabilitation (PsR) remains a critical aspect in maximizing recovery and quality of life (QOL) for stroke survivors. In the present case report, poststroke survivor was administered a 90-day tailored integrated yoga and naturopathy (IYN) intervention including daily neutral arm bath, partial massage, and yoga therapy. Following interventions, clinically significant improvement in the range of motion of joints, handgrip strength (Lt. 2.7 kg vs. 14.9 kg), improvement in mid-arm circumference, gait, and cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores 16 vs. 29) was achieved. In QOL, there was an improvement in each domain of the Short Form 36 questionnaire except for role limitations due to the physical health domain. Improvement in blood pressure (150/60 mmHg vs. 118/70 mmHg) led to a reduction in need of medication. Notably, there was improvement in depression (19 vs. 08), anxiety (18 vs. 08), and stress (21 vs. 07) scores. This case report underscores the potential of IYN intervention in PsR.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of YogaSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207