Прогнозування відновлення ходьби на ранніх стадіях після інсульту
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor impairments, including gait and balance disorders, alongside cognitive deficits, form the core of disability following a stroke. Neurological recovery is most active during the first six months after the event, and restoring the ability to walk is a key goal of rehabilitation. Predicting walking recovery is a critical concern for patients and their families, as it directly impacts rehabilitation outcomes and quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive physical therapy approach in predicting and enhancing walking recovery in post-stroke patients. The research involved 62 individuals who were randomized into two groups: the main group followed a specially designed program, while the comparison group adhered to standard rehabilitation protocols. Functional and cognitive recovery was assessed using tools such as The Trunk Control Test for Motor Impairment After Stroke, Barthel Index, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). These instruments provided an integrated evaluation of functional status, cognitive abilities, and dependency levels, critical for assessing rehabilitation potential. The results demonstrated a direct correlation between cognitive abilities and the capacity for independent walking. Following physical therapy, the average MoCA score increased from 16.72 ± 7.41 to 20.48 ± 7.18, and the MMSE score improved from 18.91 ± 7.98 to 22.71 ± 7.43, indicating cognitive enhancements. The Barthel Index showed a significant increase from 30.41 ± 16.74 to 66.37 ± 15.97, reflecting reduced disability levels. The Trunk Control Test scores averaged 43.75 ± 26.18 in the main group and 39.23 ± 34.58 in the comparison group, with 24 patients across both groups regaining independent walking within four weeks. Conclusions. The obtained results indicate that the use of tools such as The Trunk Control Test, Barthel Index, MoCA, and MMSE, focused on assessing functional status and cognitive abilities, is a key factor in improving the effectiveness of rehabilitation and predicting the restoration of independent walking in the early stages after stroke.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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".