Optimized Home Rehabilitation Technology Reduces Upper Extremity Impairment Compared to a Conventional Home Exercise Program: A Randomized, Controlled, Single-Blind Trial in Subacute Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundUpper extremity (UE) stroke rehabilitation requires patients to perform exercises at home, yet patients show limited benefit from paper-based home exercise programs.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of 2 home exercise programs for reducing UE impairment: a paper-based approach and a sensorized exercise system that incorporates recommended design features for home rehabilitation technology.MethodsIn this single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 27 participants in the subacute phase of stroke were assigned to the sensorized exercise (n = 14) or conventional therapy group (n = 13), though 2 participants in the conventional therapy group were lost to follow-up. Participants were instructed to perform self-guided movement training at home for at least 3 hours/week for 3 consecutive weeks. The sensorized exercise group used FitMi, a computer game with 2 puck-like sensors that encourages movement intensity and auto-progresses users through 40 exercises. The conventional group used a paper book of exercises. The primary outcome measure was the change in Upper Extremity Fugl–Meyer (UEFM) score from baseline to follow-up. Secondary measures included the Modified Ashworth Scale for spasticity (MAS) and the Visual Analog Pain (VAP) scale.ResultsParticipants who used FitMi improved by an average of 8.0 ± 4.6 points on the UEFM scale compared to 3.0 ± 6.1 points for the conventional participants, a significant difference (<i>t</i>-test, <i>P</i> = .029). FitMi participants exhibited no significant changes in UE MAS or VAP scores.ConclusionsA sensor-based exercise system incorporating a suite of recommended design features significantly and safely reduced UE impairment compared to a paper-based, home exercise program.Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03503617
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".