Assessing Mobility and Locomotor Coordination after Stroke with the Rise-to-Walk Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To assess mobility and locomotor coordination after stroke with the rise-to-walk task (RTW) and to examine the construct and concurrent validity of this task. METHODS: Nineteen subjects who had sustained a stroke and 19 healthy subjects performed the RTW task. The performance was recorded simultaneously with 2 clinical methods and 1 instrumented method. The RTW duration and fluidity of the motor strategy (fluid or nonfluid) were compared between groups and between methods. The relationship between RTW duration and 3 locomotor-related disability tests, as well as 1 motor impairment test, was studied. RESULTS: The subjects with stroke took 65% more time to complete the RTW task, and 16/19 separated the tasks of rising and walking (nonfluid strategy). Measures of the RTW duration with clinical methods were strongly correlated (r = 0.84 to 0.98) to those from the instrumented method, and the motor strategy was successfully assessed from video records. The duration was moderately correlated to scores from other locomotor-related tests, but not to the motor impairment test. DISCUSSION: The assessment of mobility and locomotor coordination with the RTW task indicate that both outcomes are impaired after stroke and that clinical methods provide a valid measurement of the task.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".