Constraint-induced Movement Therapy in a Group Format For Improvement of The Upper Limb Function : Comparing Two Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare two protocols (3 hours and 6 hours) of Constraint Induced Movement Therapy (CIMT) in a group format.MethodsFive chronic stroke subjects attended a group based CIMT program, 3 hours per day, during 10 days of treatment, and five months later the same participants attended a group based CIMT program, 6 hours per day, during 10 days of treatment. The patients were assessed through the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Motor Activity Log (MAL) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The interventions procedure included common activities for both protocols.ResultsBoth types of CIMT intervention increase the function and use of the affected upper limb.Table1. Functional resultstPre-test 3htPost-test 3htp-value 3htPre-test 6htPost-test 6htp-value 6hWMFT- Functional Ability Scalet3.56 (3,46;3.58)t3.88 (3.55;4.44)t0.138t4 (3.70;4.46)t4.3 (3.85;4.85)t0.042WMFT- Timet10.33 (5;13,96)t4.71 (2,48;5,90)t0.043t5.96 (3.35;10.20)t4.5 (3.00;6.68)t0.042WMFT- Grip Strengtht10.33 (5.00;13.96)t14,33 (8.10;19.83)t0.345t11.33 (9,33;22,33)t12.66 (10.00;26.30)t0.345MAL- Amount Of Uset1.13 (0.61;2.00)t3.10 (2.21;3.35)t0.043t2.83 (1.25;3.12)t3.30 (2.55;3.77)t0.042MAL- Quality Of Movimentt0.90 (0.72;2.01)t3.10 (2.21;3.35)t0.043t2.40 (1.30;3.02)t3.05 (2.7;4.78)t0.043COPM- Performancet3.20 (1.8;5.3)t5.2 (4.5;7.5)t0.042t5.2 (2.80;6.35)t5.80 (3.80;7.25)t0.042COPM- Satisfactiont3.2 (1.8;5.3)t5.2 (4.5;7.5)t0.042t4.0 (2.80;7.85)t6.4 (3.80;7.85)t0.109All scores median (interquartile range).ConclusionModified CIMT showed to be as good as an original protocol of CIMT 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".