MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051239059 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.854840

Comparison of three instruments to assess changes of motor impairment in acute hemispheric stroke: the Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS), the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and the Canadian Neurological Scale (CNS)

2013· article· en· W2051239059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Masaru Seki, Kimitaka Hase, Hidetoshi Takahashi, Meigen Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPhysical therapyAcute strokeMotor impairmentTest (biology)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare the performance of three representative instruments to measure changes of motor recovery with acute hemispheric stroke. METHOD: In 41 consecutive patients with acute hemispheric infarction, motor recovery was assessed within 3 days of onset and then every 2 weeks until the 12th week with the Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS), the National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) and the Canadian Neurological Scale (CNS). We analyzed the relationships among the corresponding subscales of the three instruments with the Spearman's rank correlation method, and compared their responsiveness by plotting the temporal profiles of scores of each instrument and by testing the significance of changes over time with the Friedman test. RESULTS: High correlations were observed among the three instruments at each examination point. However, the SIAS scores were more widely dispersed at the same NIHSS and CNS scores. Friedman test revealed that the scores changed significantly during the observation period with the SIAS and the CNS but not with the NIHSS. The changes were detected later with the CNS than with the SIAS. CONCLUSIONS: Although the assessment results with the three instruments were highly inter-correlated, the SIAS performed better with respect to responsiveness to changes. Implication for Rehabilitation When providing rehabilitation services to patients with stroke, it is important to document objectively the level of their impairment from the acute stage and during the entire course of rehabilitation with standardized instrument, and to predict their functional outcomes as early and accurately as possible. This study therefore compared three representative instruments with established psychometric properties, the SIAS, the NIHSS and the CNS, with respect to their ability to document motor impairment and their responsiveness to recovery in patients with acute hemispheric stroke.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207