MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1433926938 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.125

Real-time tracking of functional performance using accelerometers on the acute-stroke unit: proof-of-concept study

2015· article· en· W1433926938 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
AC Jacobson, B Bakashi Nategh, Lesley K. Fellows, Nancy E. Mayo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationToiletingStroke (engine)Preferred walking speedPhysical therapyAcute strokeAccelerometerAcute careTimed Up and Go testActivities of daily livingBalance (ability)Computer scienceHealth careEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Acute stroke care pathways are increasingly implemented to improve integration of best-practices, but evidence for impact on functional outcomes is not strong. Elements missing from care-pathways are those directly targeting improvement in function: sit-to-stand and time spent walking. The Stroke Team uses care-pathways to track functional capacity, what the patient can and cannot do, but performance on these key outcomes is difficult to track as the patient is observed by multiple people throughout the day. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and added-value of real-time tracking of patients’ mobility. Methods: A chart review was carried out to identify the extent to which functional capacity and performance is tracked routinely by the Stroke Team. Ethical approval was gained for routine use of accelerometers to be affixed to the unaffected thigh. Results: Swallowing, bladder control, toileting, and feeding were consistently tracked for ~90% of patients. Bed-mobility and capacity to transfer rarely tracked (<12%). Capacity for walking and sit-to-stand was noted but never frequency (performance). Conclusion: Our proof-of concept study will test 30 patients over the next 2 months and link real time performance on transitions and walking to stroke severity and outcome.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→