MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W816490737

The Effect of a Community-Based Group Exercise in Chronic Stroke

2005· article· en· W816490737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jong-Im Won

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy Korea · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBerg Balance ScalePhysical therapyBalance (ability)Stroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineActivities of daily livingGaitChronic strokeRehabilitationPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-based group exercise programs for people with chronic stroke are relatively uncommon in Korea. In addition, it is currently not known whether a community-based group exercise program is effective or not. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an 8 week community-based functional exercise program for its effects on balance performance and occupational performance in persons with chronic stroke. Twenty-five community-dwelling individuals with stroke participated in this program. Outcome of the program was assessed by the Berg Balance Scale and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The functional exercise program lasted for eight weeks, with a 1-hour program twice per week and it consisted of mobility, stability, balance, functional strength, and gait training. The subjects were trained by one physical therapist but were under one-to-one supervision from students. The data of sixteen individuals who scored more than 24 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were analyzed. There was a significant effect both in terms of the COPM Performance Score & the Satisfaction Score (p=.002) and with the Berg Balance Score (p=.001). It was found that a short-term community-based exercise program could improve both performance of activities and balance. Further, all subjects reported that they were satisfied with this program.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · 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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Therapy KoreaSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207