ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Do predictors of motor recovery differ between robotic and conventional post-stroke rehabilitation?
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile research on robotic rehabilitation has largely focused on evaluating device effectiveness, there remains a clear need to investigate patient characteristics that predict response to robot-assisted therapy. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) techniques support such investigations by enabling the development of data-driven tools to assist in selecting appropriate rehabilitation treatments. This study aimed to develop two ML models, predicting two motor outcomes each, following either robot-assisted or conventional upper limb rehabilitation in post-stroke patients. It further sought to compare how baseline predictors contributed differently across the two treatment modalities.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial evaluating robotic upper limb rehabilitation in post-stroke patients. Four ML algorithms were trained and validated using a nested cross-validation framework, with models developed separately for robotic and conventional treatment subgroups. Baseline predictors were used to estimate two post-treatment motor outcomes: Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). SHAP analyses were performed to assess the contribution of each predictor to the models.
resultsAfter data cleaning, 99 patients in the conventional group and 91 in the robotic group were included. Prediction errors for ARAT score after training (expressed in median and absolute error) were 5.0 [6.0] in the robotic group and 3.0 [6.0] in the conventional group. For FMA prediction, results were 5.0 [5.0] and 5.0 [7.0], respectively. Baseline FMA was a strong predictor of ARAT outcomes in both groups. For FMA prediction, the presence of neglect emerged as more influential in the robotic group. Age was a key predictor of both outcomes, but only in the conventional group.
conclusionsThe differing contributions of baseline predictors across treatment types provide clinically meaningful insights and support the development of clinical decision support systems aimed at optimizing rehabilitation strategies based on individual patient characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.