human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Objective This study aim ed to demonstrate that maximal strength training improves muscle strength and to assess the effect of training on function , aerobic status , and quality -of-life among chronic stroke survivors . Design Ten patients acted as their own controls for 4 wks , before an 8-week training intervention . Patients trained 3 days/wk , with four sets of four repetitions at 85%–95 % one repetition maximum in unilateral leg press and plantarflexion with an emphasis on maximal mobilization of force in the concentric phase . Results After training , leg press strength improved by 30.6 kg ( 75 % ) and 17.8 kg ( 86 % ) ; plantarflexion strength improved by 35.5 kg ( 89 % ) and 28.5 kg ( 223 % ) for the unaffected and affected limbs , respectively , significantly different from the control period ( all P < 0.01 ) . The 6-min walk test improved by 13.9 m ( within training period ; P = 0.01 ) , and the Timed Up and Go test time improved by 0.6 secs ( within training period ; P < 0.05 ) . There were no significant changes in walking economy , peak aerobic capacity , Four-Square Step Test , or health-related quality -of-life after training . Conclusions Maximal strength training improved muscle strength in the most affected as well as in the nonaffected leg and improved Timed-Up- And -Go time and 6-min walk distance but did not alter Four-Step Square Test time , aerobic status , or quality -of-life among chronic stroke survivors Background Many bibliographic data bases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions . One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Data base ( PEDro ) has the most complete indexing of reports of r and omized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions , but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro . Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of r and omized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic data bases . Design This study was an audit of bibliographic data bases . Methods Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of r and omized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic review s published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions .  Eight data bases ( AMED , CENTRAL , CINAHL , EMBASE , Hooked on Evidence , PEDro , PsycINFO , and PubMed ) were search ed for each trial report . The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each data base was calculated . Results The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the data bases were as follows : CENTRAL , 95 % ; PEDro , 92 % ; PubMed , 89 % ; EMBASE , 88 % ; CINAHL , 53 % ; AMED , 50 % ; Hooked on Evidence , 45 % ; and PsycINFO , 6 % . Almost all of the trial reports ( 99 % ) were found in at least 1 data base , and 88 % were indexed by 4 or more data bases . Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single data base only ( 2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed ) . Limitations The results are only applicable to search ing for English- language published reports of r and omized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions . Conclusions The 4 most comprehensive data bases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL , PEDro , PubMed , and EMBASE . Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these data bases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive . PEDro , unlike the other 3 most complete data bases , is specific to physical therapy , so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved . Research ers could use CENTRAL , PEDro , PubMed , and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive search es for r and omized trials in physical therapy 
    Output:
    
agent
DISCUSSION This systematic review will provide information on which interventions are effective for increasing physical activity levels of stroke survivors .
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Objective This study aim ed to demonstrate that maximal strength training improves muscle strength and to assess the effect of training on function , aerobic status , and quality -of-life among chronic stroke survivors . Design Ten patients acted as their own controls for 4 wks , before an 8-week training intervention . Patients trained 3 days/wk , with four sets of four repetitions at 85%–95 % one repetition maximum in unilateral leg press and plantarflexion with an emphasis on maximal mobilization of force in the concentric phase . Results After training , leg press strength improved by 30.6 kg ( 75 % ) and 17.8 kg ( 86 % ) ; plantarflexion strength improved by 35.5 kg ( 89 % ) and 28.5 kg ( 223 % ) for the unaffected and affected limbs , respectively , significantly different from the control period ( all P < 0.01 ) . The 6-min walk test improved by 13.9 m ( within training period ; P = 0.01 ) , and the Timed Up and Go test time improved by 0.6 secs ( within training period ; P < 0.05 ) . There were no significant changes in walking economy , peak aerobic capacity , Four-Square Step Test , or health-related quality -of-life after training . Conclusions Maximal strength training improved muscle strength in the most affected as well as in the nonaffected leg and improved Timed-Up- And -Go time and 6-min walk distance but did not alter Four-Step Square Test time , aerobic status , or quality -of-life among chronic stroke survivors Background Many bibliographic data bases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions . One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Data base ( PEDro ) has the most complete indexing of reports of r and omized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions , but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro . Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of r and omized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic data bases . Design This study was an audit of bibliographic data bases . Methods Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of r and omized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic review s published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions .  Eight data bases ( AMED , CENTRAL , CINAHL , EMBASE , Hooked on Evidence , PEDro , PsycINFO , and PubMed ) were search ed for each trial report . The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each data base was calculated . Results The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the data bases were as follows : CENTRAL , 95 % ; PEDro , 92 % ; PubMed , 89 % ; EMBASE , 88 % ; CINAHL , 53 % ; AMED , 50 % ; Hooked on Evidence , 45 % ; and PsycINFO , 6 % . Almost all of the trial reports ( 99 % ) were found in at least 1 data base , and 88 % were indexed by 4 or more data bases . Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single data base only ( 2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed ) . Limitations The results are only applicable to search ing for English- language published reports of r and omized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions . Conclusions The 4 most comprehensive data bases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL , PEDro , PubMed , and EMBASE . Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these data bases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive . PEDro , unlike the other 3 most complete data bases , is specific to physical therapy , so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved . Research ers could use CENTRAL , PEDro , PubMed , and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive search es for r and omized trials in physical therapy 
    Output:
    