Effect of modified attention and explanation therapy on rehabilitation nursing of stroke patients with hemiplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo explore the effect of modified Attention and Interpretation Therapy（AIT） on motor function and cognitive level of stroke patients with hemiplegia.MethodsA total of 120 patients with hemiplegia after stroke in the Rehabilitation Department of the Affiliated Hospital of North China University of Science and Technology were selected and divided into the observation group and the control group，with 60 cases each，by the sealed envelope method.The control group received the routine nursing intervention，and the observation group received the modified AIT for 8 weeks based on the routine nursing.The Fugl⁃Meyer Assessment Scale（FMA） and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment（MoCA） were used to evaluate the intervention effect before，4 weeks，and 8 weeks after the intervention.ResultsThe time effect， between⁃group effect，and interaction effect of the total score of FMA and each dimension score of the two groups of patients were statistically significant（P<0.05）.The time effect，between⁃group effect，and interaction effect of cognition total score，execution，naming，attention，language，and memory，orientation dimension score were all statistically significant（P<0.05）.ConclusionsModified AIT could effectively improve the motor function of stroke patients with hemiplegia and then improve the cognitive level.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".