MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407449463 · doi:10.2196/56397

Neurotechnology-Based, Intensive, Supplementary Upper-Extremity Training for Inpatients With Subacute Stroke: Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4407449463 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reut Binyamin-Netser, Shirley Handelzalts, Noy Goldhamer, Inbar Avni, Adi Tayer Yeshurun, Yogev Koren, Ofri Bibas Levy, Shilo Kramer, Simona Bar‐Haim, Lior Shmuelof

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemiparesisMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationStroke (engine)Physical therapyUpper limbElbowWristActivities of daily livingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Upper-extremity hemiparesis is a common and debilitating impairment after stroke, severely restricting stroke survivors' ability to participate in daily activities and function independently. Alarmingly, only a small percentage of stroke patients fully recover upper extremity function. Animal models indicate that high-dose upper extremity training during the early poststroke phase can significantly enhance motor recovery. However, translating such programs for human patients remains challenging due to resource limitations, patient compliance issues, and administrative constraints. Objective: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and potential efficacy of an intensive, video game-based upper-extremity training protocol designed to improve movement quality during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Additionally, it evaluated the resources required for this intervention. Specifically, the protocol provides high-intensity, high-dose training to facilitate motor recovery by engaging patients in targeted interactive exercises. Methods: Twelve patients with upper-extremity hemiparesis completed a 4-week intensive training program comprising 40 sessions of 60 minutes; the training was conducted for 2 hours per day, 5 days per week. This was delivered in addition to standard care, which included 3 therapeutic sessions daily. Two video game-based platforms were used: one platform (tech 1) targeted proximal movements involving the shoulder and elbow, while the second platform (tech 2) emphasized distal movements of the wrist and fingers. Feasibility was assessed using the measure of time on task and measures of patients' motivation and engagement. Potential effectiveness was assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity (FMA-UE) scale, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). Results: Of the 12 patients, 8 completed the full protocol, 3 completed 34-38 sessions, and 1 completed 27 sessions. On average, patients actively engaged in exercises for 35 (SD 4) minutes per hour on the proximal platform (tech 1) and 37 (SD 2) minutes on the distal platform (tech 2). Patients reported high motivation and enjoyment throughout the sessions, with an Intrinsic Motivation Inventory enjoyment score of 6.49 (SD 0.66) out of 7. Pain levels were minimal, with a visual analogue scale (VAS) mean score of 2.00 (SD 2.32). Significant improvements were observed in motor function assessments: the mean improvement in FMA-UE score was 16.5 (SD 10.2) points, ARAT scores increased by 22.9 (SD 13.1) points, and the SIS Hand Function and Recovery score showed a mean delta of 1.23 (SD 0.80) points and a 23.33% (SD 21.5%) improvement, respectively. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that a high-dose, high-intensity, video game-based training protocol is feasible and can be successfully integrated into subacute stroke rehabilitation. Additionally, preliminary evidence suggests that this supplementary intervention may be effective in enhancing motor recovery. This approach holds promise for future stroke rehabilitation protocols by offering an engaging, high-dose, and high-intensity program during early recovery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207