Analysis of the Effect of Occupational Therapy on Post-Stroke Patient Recovery: Impacts on Motor Skills, Cognitive Function, and Emotional Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of occupational therapy on the recovery of post-stroke patients, focusing on improvements in motor skills, cognitive function, emotional well-being, and overall quality of life. A total of 100 stroke survivors were randomly assigned to either an occupational therapy intervention group or a control group receiving standard care. The intervention comprised individualized, task-oriented therapy over six months, addressing motor, cognitive, and emotional impairments. Outcomes were measured using standardized assessments, including the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Barthel Index, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Additionally, qualitative interviews provided insights into patient experiences and therapy impacts. The occupational therapy group showed significant improvements in motor skills, as evidenced by higher scores on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and increased functional independence as measured by the Barthel Index. Cognitive function improved markedly, with higher MoCA scores observed in the intervention group. Emotional well-being also enhanced, with reduced depressive symptoms reported on the BDI. Qualitative data revealed increased patient satisfaction, autonomy, and a more positive outlook on recovery. Occupational therapy is effective in promoting recovery for stroke survivors, leading to notable improvements in motor function, cognitive abilities, and emotional health.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".