Long-term benefits of a tailored strength training intervention on arm function in chronic stroke survivors: a follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We showed that a tailored strengthening intervention based on the size of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the affected arm was effective in improving function in chronic stroke survivors. Here, we investigated whether the short-term gains in arm function were maintained at 1-year follow-up. Subjects: Twenty-five participants at the chronic stage of a stroke. Methods: Participants were classified in the light (LI; MEPs 50–120 μV, n = 8) and high (HI; MEPs > 120μV, n = 17) intensity training groups. The strengthening protocol consisted of adjusted exercises for the affected arm (3X/week; 4 weeks). The Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment (FMA), Grip strength (GS) and Box and Block test (BBT) were assessed at baseline, post-intervention and at 1-year follow-up. Changes in clinical measures were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: A significant effect of time was noted on all outcome measures [FMA: p < 0.001; BBT: p = 0.05; GS: p < 0.001], but the LI group improved more on the FMA (p = 0.003) and maintained their gains at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.527) than the HI group. Conclusion: The size of MEPs in the affected arm could be a significant factor in influencing responses to strengthening exercises post-stroke and allow gains to be maintained up to 1 year post-intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".