Modified Constraint induced Movement Therapy (Mcimt) in Stroke Subjects : a Day Camp Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy (mCIMT) in the context of the Day Camp model in seven chronic stroke adults.MethodsSeven patients attended a group based mCIMT program, 3 hours per day, during 10 days of treatment, supervised by a multidisciplinary team. The patients were assessed before and after the protocol through the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Motor Activity Log (MAL) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). For the clinical training, all the traditional mCIMT components were used, including the behavioral package, task specific training and restraint. For the restraint of the less affected upper limb, it was used a glove meant to be worn by 90% of the agreed time. Home exercises were personalized according to the information collected in the COPM.ResultsA significant improvement was found in all variables, except for hand strength.Table 1. Functional resultst Pre-testtPost-testtp-valueWMFT- Functional Ability Scalet3.52 (2.7; 3.58)t3.88 (3.35; 4.00)t0.043WMFT- Timet8.21 (7.28; 27.06)t4.71 (3.03; 6.48)t0.018WMFT- Grip Strengtht10.00 (0; 10.60)t12 (5.00; 19.66)t0.128MAL- Amount Of Uset0.67 (0.06; 1.60)t2.90 (1.53; 3.27)t0.018MAL- Quality Of Movimentt0.76 (0.60; 1.90)t3.00 (1.58; 3.25)t0.018COPM- Performancet2.40 (1.6; 3.8)t5.2 (3.8; 5.8)t0.018COPM- Satisfactiont2.40 (1.60; 3.8)t5.2 (3.8; 5.8)t0.018All scores median (interquartile range).ConclusionThe mCIMT in a day camp model showed to be a great strategy for improvement of the upper limb function in adults with 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".