Efficacy of combined physical and occupational therapy treatment of patients with sub acute neuralgic amyotrophy:\na proof of principle pilot-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction\nCurrently no evidence is available for a multidisciplinary intervention helping people with upper extremity complaints who are recovering from neuralgic amyotrophy (NA). These patients encounter numerous difficulties in daily life and are often not able to resume work activities. We have developed a multidisciplinary treatment program for these patients, combining physical therapy and occupational therapy. We have tried to establish a proof of principle for this treatment program\nDesign\nProof of principle pilot study\nMethods\nEight patients recovering >6 months after NA, recruited from our outpatient clinic, have been structurally measured 3 months before and during the treatment period. All patients received eight sessions of occupational- and physical therapy over a period of 16 weeks. Including proprioceptive shoulder training, strength training, behavioral therapy and teaching of energy conservation techniques.\nResults\nPatients showed no significant change in patients, three months prior to entering the program.\nAt the end of program, patients show large and statistically significant improvements (p<0.025) on the canadian occupational performance measure (COPM) (+2.0 points) and shoulder rating questionnaire (SRQ) (+46%) measurements. The majority of patients also show large improvements in disability of arm shoulder and hand (DASH) scores and increase of serratus anterior muscle strength (6 of 8 patients). Checklist individual strength (CIS)-fatique scores did not change significantly.\nConclusion\nResults clearly show that therapy has not damaged or disadvantaged participants. They show a big improvement in efficacy in our patients. Patients learn to adapt to their complaints and limitations, are able to function better and reach higher satisfaction. Further research into a multidisciplinary approach for people recovering from NA is advised.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".