The effects of repeated rehabilitation “Tune-Ups” on functional recovery after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: For the vast majority of stroke survivors, rehabilitation (i.e. physiotherapy and occupational therapy) is the only treatment option available. Following an initial phase of rehabilitation, many patients are sent home and return periodically for brief periods of therapy … often lasting just days. It is unclear what, if any, benefit this periodic return to therapy has for functional recovery, and if the type and intensity of therapy is optimal for maintaining or further enhancing functional gains. While the beneficial effects of early rehabilitation on neuroplasticity and functional recovery have been modeled in experimental stroke using a combination of enriched environment and rehabilitation (Biernaskie & Corbett, 2001), it remains uncertain if a secondary therapeutic intervention, such as a return to enrichment/rehabilitation ("Tune-Up"), can produce beneficial changes in brain plasticity that might further improve functional recovery. The aim of this study is to examine these questions. Methods: Rats (n = 53) were exposed to cerebral ischemia or sham surgery and allowed to recover either in standard housing (i.e. “untreated”) or in a combination of enriched environment and rehabilitative reaching (i.e. “enriched/rehab”). Following 9 weeks of treatment, all animals were placed in standard housing for 5 weeks, after which they received 2 weeks of intensive therapy consisting of enhanced enriched environments and structured sensorimotor/cognitive rehabilitative activities (i.e. “Tune-Up” therapy). This was followed by yet another period of rest and “Tune-Up” therapy. A series of behavioural tests were used throughout the study to assess sensorimotor function and monitor recovery. Golgi-Cox analysis was used to examine dendritic arborization and spine densities at the end of the behavioural experiments. Results: Preliminary analysis showed that while early enriched/rehab therapy significantly improved sensorimotor function in both the beam and staircase tests, Tune-Up therapy appears to have had little effect on the recovery of function. Animals that did not receive early rehabilitation did not improve, and those that did receive early rehabilitation did not show any added benefit from the “Tune-Up” therapy. While preliminary Golgi-Cox analysis does not show any significant effect of either therapeutic paradigm on dendritic arborization, all treatment groups did tend to have more complex basilar and apical branching than ischemic animals that received no treatment. Conclusions: Importantly, the current study has reaffirmed the functional benefits of early rehabilitation using a different model of focal ischemia than previously employed in this laboratory. Results to date suggest that “Tune-Up” therapy provides little or no benefit to ischemic rats that received early rehabilitation or to those rats that received no prior therapy. It remains to be determined whether in the absence of “Tune-Up” therapy
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".