MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132893693

Early exercise intervention after stroke: influence on aerobic and functional capacity

2005· dissertation· W7132893693 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ada Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2005
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
KeywordsCycle ergometerStroke (engine)RehabilitationAerobic exercisePhysical activityIntervention (counseling)Aerobic capacity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the stroke population, regular physical activity has the potential to positively influence both stroke-related outcomes and risk factors for recurrent events. The overall objective of this work was to determine the feasibility and effects of exercise testing and early aerobic training in the sub-acute stroke population. The feasibility of maximal exercise testing on a semi-recumbent cycle ergometer was established, and recommendations were provided for test termination and criteria for maximal effort during exercise testing. Individuals with stroke who participated in an early aerobic exercise program on a semi-recumbent cycle ergometer in addition to conventional rehabilitation demonstrated significant improvement in VO2peak and a trend towards greater improvement in peak work rate and functional ambulation, compared to those who received conventional rehabilitation only. Results contribute to our knowledge about the influence of physical activity among stroke survivors, and have implications on shaping the clinical practice in stroke rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→