Linking brain stroke risk factors to human movement features for the development of preventive tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses human movement analyses to assess the susceptibility of brain stroke, one of the most important causes of disability in elders. To that end, a computerized battery of nine neuromuscular tests has been designed and evaluated with a sample of 120 subjects with or without stoke risk factors. The kinematics of the movements produced was analyzed using a computational neuromuscular model and predictive characteristics were extracted. Logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis with leave-one-out cross-validation was used to infer the probability of presence of brain stroke risk factors. The clinical potential value of movement information for stroke prevention was assessed by computing area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the diagnostic of risk factors based on motion analysis. AUC mostly varying between 0.6 and 0.9 were obtained, depending on the neuromuscular test and the risk factor investigated (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, cigarette smoking, and cardiac disease). Our results support the feasibility of the proposed methodology and its potential application for the development of brain stroke prevention tools. Although further research is needed to improve this methodology and its outcome, results are promising and the proposed approach should be of great interest for many experimenters open to novel approaches in preventive medicine and in gerontology. It should also be valuable for engineers, psychologists, and researchers using human movements for the development of diagnostic and neuromuscular assessment tools.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".