A Fully Automated, Quantitative Test of Upper Limb Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rehabilitation Joystick for Computerized Exercise (ReJoyce, Rehabtronics Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada), is a workstation on which participants exercise dexterous movement tasks in the guise of computer games. The system incorporates the ReJoyce Arm and Hand Function Test (RAHFT). Here the authors evaluate the RAHFT against the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA). All 3 tests were performed in 36 separate sessions in 13 tetraplegic individuals. Concurrent and criterion validities of the RAHFT were supported by a high level of correlation with the ARAT (r2 = .88). Regarding responsiveness, the effect size of the RAHFT at week 6 of 1 hr/day exercise training was 1.8. Regarding reliability, the mean test-retest difference in RAHFT baseline scores was 0.67% ± 3.6%, which was not statistically significant. The RAHFT showed less ceiling effect than either ARAT or FMA. These data help validate the RAHFT as a quantitative, automated alternative to the ARAT and FMA. The RAHFT is the first comprehensive test of arm and dexterous hand function that does not depend on human judgment. It offers a standardized, quantitative outcome evaluation, which can be performed not only in the clinic, but also in the participant's home, administered by a remote therapist over the Internet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".