Feasibility of post-stroke hand rehabilitation supported by a soft robotic hand orthosis in-clinic and at-home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of adult disability in the world. Upper limb impairments are common post-stroke, with nearly half of those initially affected continuing to live with long-term functional limitations, impacting their independence and quality of life. Task-specific, intensive therapy has been shown to promote recovery; however, achieving this dose is resource-intensive and logistically challenging. Robotic hand orthoses (RHOs) are a promising approach to support functional rehabilitation regardless of location, thus providing high-dose therapy with minimal additional burden on the clinics. METHODS: We evaluated the use of the RELab tenoexo 2.0, a soft RHO, in a two-phase feasibility study supporting functional hand training in persons after chronic stroke. Participants (n = 8) first used the device to complete nine training sessions supervised by occupational therapists over 3 weeks in-clinic, then brought the device home to continue the training to complete 2 weeks of unsupervised training. Feasibility was assessed with therapy dose (repetitions and time) and adherence to the suggested at-home rehabilitation program. Functional improvements were tracked using clinical assessments across time points. Finally, usability evaluations provided insights into users' perceptions of the device. RESULTS: During the in-clinic phase, participants completed an average of 809 ± 317 RHO supported repetitions over 521 ± 130 min. At home, this increased to 1293 ± 948 repetitions over 486 ± 125 min across an average of 11.75 ± 5.4 sessions. Across the whole intervention, participant's mean Action Research Arm Test score increased by 5.0 ± 4.4, whereas the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity score increased by 6.0 ± 2.5. These improvements were retained after one month. The usability was rated as good, with a mean System Usability Scale rating of 72.5, and a mean Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 score of 3.94/5.0. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the RHO can serve as a viable rehabilitation tool for functional hand training after chronic stroke across the continuum of care. High-dose training, both in-clinic and at home, demonstrated the feasibility of the device and intervention, with meaningful clinical improvements highlighting its therapeutic potential as a training strategy. High adherence rates and positive usability indicate strong user acceptance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06412237.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".