MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415881827 · doi:10.2196/80525

Comparison of Body Weight Support–Assisted Balance and Gait Training With or Without Balance Perturbations in Poststroke Rehabilitation: Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4415881827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pete Grevelding, Amanda Meyer, John Corbett, Kaitlyn Rudolf, Emily Meise, Caitlin Boland, Camille Grzelak, Henry C. Hrdlicka

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Randomized controlled trialGaitRehabilitationBalance trainingBody weightOutcome (game theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Impaired balance regulation after stroke puts patients and therapists at a heightened risk of injury during rehabilitation. Body weight support systems (BWSS) allow patients to safely conduct gait and balance training while minimizing risk and the fear of falling. Integrating perturbation-based balance training (PBT) modules with a BWSS may lead to further improvements. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a ceiling-track-mounted BWSS plus an integrated PBT (BWSS-P) module on the rehabilitation of stroke-related gait and balance impairments. Methods: A multisite randomized active-comparator controlled trial was conducted. Inpatients with Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores ≥21/56 were recruited from 4 sites. Participants completed 2-to-6 BWSS or BWSS-P study sessions. Both groups conducted the same balance and gait regimen, with the BWSS-P group also receiving 8 balance perturbations per session. BBS, Activities-Specific Balance Confidence, and 10 Meter Walk Test assessments were collected. Results: A total of 126 patients were approached with 99 yielding sufficient data for analysis. With a corrected α level of .0054, both groups showed significant in-group changes over time for all outcomes evaluated (P≤.001). However, the primary outcome measure, the BBS, did not show evidence of a difference between BWSS and BWSS-P groups over time (F1,97=1.57; P=0.21) via linear mixed effects modeling with type III Wald F test with Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom. No significant between-group differences were noted for either secondary outcome measure, the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence scale (F1,94.99=0.36; P=.55), or 10 Meter Walk Test (F1,97=4.15; P=.04). Conclusions: Although significant between-group differences were not observed, participants in both groups demonstrated similar improvements from before to after assessment. This novel PBT technology shows promise as an option for gait and balance recovery training, especially for individuals with impaired balance control or fear of falling. The BWSS-P intervention contributed positively to rehabilitation outcome overall and should be considered as a viable treatment modality when clinically appropriate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207