Manual dexterity in hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy type 1a: Severity of limitations and feasibility and reliability of 2 assessment instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and significance of impaired manual dexterity in hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy type 1a (HMSN 1a), with the Sollerman hand function and the Functional Dexterity test, and compare the reliability and agreement of the tests. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: Forty-nine subjects with HMSN 1a. RESULTS: Forty-six (94%) subjects had an abnormal Sollerman sum score (< 80) for the dominant hand. The most difficult subtests required finger grips such as pulp, tripod and lateral pinches. Dexterity scores of both hands were categorized as "moderately functional". Test-retest reliability was excellent for the Sollerman test, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.98 and 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-0.99), and good for Functional Dexterity test scores with correlation coefficients between 0.83 and 0.95 (95% CI. 71-0.97). The 95% limits of agreement between Sollerman tests showed that differences greater than 3 points can be interpreted as a change in dexterity. The Functional Dexterity test limits were wide. CONCLUSION: Impaired manual dexterity is common among subjects with HMSN 1a, stressing that the evaluation of dexterity is an essential element of the functional assessment. Both tests are able to detect impaired manual performance in HMSN 1a. For monitoring of disease progression and the effects of treatment programmes the Sollerman test is most suitable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".