Impact of Motor, Cognitive, and Perceptual Disorders on Ability to Perform Activities of Daily Living After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Using confirmatory factor analysis, this study evaluates the relative impact of motor, cognitive, and perceptual deficits on functional autonomy with 100 elderly (aged 55 to 79 years) victims of stroke. METHODS: Two different approaches were used for measuring functional autonomy: the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (Système de Mesure de l'Autonomie Fonctionnelle [SMAF]) and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). RESULTS: The results of the confirmatory factor analysis show that motor, cognitive, and perceptual factors all make a significant contribution to the variation in functional autonomy and confirm the accuracy of the model (93% of the variance is explained when the SMAF is used to measure functional autonomy, and 64% of the variance is explained when the AMPS is used). CONCLUSIONS: The factors that make the greatest contribution in explaining the variance in functional autonomy are, in order of importance, the motor factor, the perceptual factor, and the cognitive factor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".