Search bioRxivSearch

Biology subjects

Martinez, C.

Publications and source records attributed to Martinez, C..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Dosage Matters: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Rehabilitation Dose in the Chronic Phase after Stroke

Background and PurposeFor stroke rehabilitation, task-specific training in animal models and human rehabilitation trials is considered important to trigger inherent neuroplasticity, promote motor learning, and functional recovery. Little is known, however, about what constitutes an effective dosage of therapy.\n\nMethodsThis is a parallel group, four arm, single blind, phase I, randomized control trial of four dosages of upper extremity therapy delivered in an outpatient setting during the chronic phase after stroke. Participants were randomized into groups that varied in total dosage of therapy (i.e., 0, 15, 30, or 60 hours). Seven hundred and four participants were assessed for eligibility, 50 were eligible to enroll, 45 were randomized, 44 participated and 41 completed the study. Planned primary analyses used linear mixed effects regression to model baseline to post-intervention changes in the Motor Activity Log-Quality of Movement rating (MALQ) and the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) time score as a function of therapy dosage. A series of hierarchical models were constructed using the MALQ and WMFT.\n\nResultsWe observed a significant dose response curve: the greater the dosage of training, the greater the change in MALQ, with the dose by week slope parameter of 0.0045 ({Delta}MAL/hour/week; p = 0.0011; 95% CI = [0.0019; 0.0071]). Over the 3 weeks of therapy, this corresponds to a gain of 0.81 in MALQ for the 60 hour dose.\n\nConclusionsFor mild-to-moderately impaired stroke survivors, the dosage of a patient-centered, task specific motor therapy was shown to systematically influence the gain in quality of arm use in the natural environment, but not functional capacity as measured in the laboratory. We highlight the importance of recovery outcomes that capture arm use vs. functional capacity.\n\nClinical Trial RegistrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 01749358

clinical trials

Building a local community of practice in scientific programming for Life Scientists

For most experimental biologists, handling the avalanche of data generated is similar to learning how to drive on your own. Although that might be doable, it is preferable and safer to learn programming and good practices together and preferably from experienced scientists. One way to achieve this is to build local communities of practice in scientific programming by bringing together life scientists that perform code-intensive research to spread know-how and good practices. The community will make sure that, for a given researcher working for an academic institution, their capacity to conduct data-intensive research will not be arbitrarily reliant on the presence of well-trained bioinformaticians in their vicinity.\n\nIn this paper, we propose a three-step field guide for building a local community of practice in scientific programming for life scientists. The first step is organizing a Carpentries programming workshop designed for researchers new to computational biology. However, while such workshops provide an immediate solution for learning, more regular long-term assistance is also needed. Researchers need persisting, local support to continue learning and solving programming issues that may hamper their research progress. The solution we describe here is to implement a Mozilla Study Group where researchers can meet-up and help each other in a \"safe-learning atmosphere\". We describe two real-life examples of building local communities of practice: one in the Netherlands at the Amsterdam Science Park and one in the United States at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In order to help future researchers to build their own community of practice in scientific programming we discuss challenges and implemented solutions.\n\nWe believe that our local communities of practice will prove useful for other life scien-tists who want to set up similar support groups for researchers involved in scientific programming and data science.\n\nAuthor summaryIn this paper, we describe why and how to build a community of practice for life scientists that start to make more use of computers and programming in their research. A community of practice is a small group of scientists that meet regularly to help each other and promote good practices in scientific computing. While most life scientists are well-trained in the laboratory to conduct experiments, good practices with (big) datasets and their analysis are often missing. This paper proposes a field-guide on how to build such a community of practice at a local academic institution. Based on two real-life examples, challenges and related recommendations are provided. We believe that the current data deluge that life scientists will increasingly face can benefit from the implementation of these small communities. Good practices spread among experimental scientists will foster open, transparent, sound scientific results beneficial to society.

scientific communication and education