Relationship Between Clinical Assessments of Function and Measurements From an Upper-Limb Robotic Rehabilitation Device in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper limb robotic rehabilitation devices can collect quantitative data about the user's movements. Identifying relationships between robotic sensor data and manual clinical assessment scores would enable more precise tracking of the time course of recovery after injury and reduce the need for time-consuming manual assessments by skilled personnel. This study used measurements from robotic rehabilitation sessions to predict clinical scores in a traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) population. A retrospective analysis was conducted on data collected from subjects using the Armeo Spring (Hocoma, AG) in three rehabilitation centers. Fourteen predictive variables were explored, relating to range-of-motion, movement smoothness, and grip ability. Regression models using up to four predictors were developed to describe the following clinical scores: the GRASSP (consisting of four sub-scores), the ARAT, and the SCIM. The resulting adjusted R(2) value was highest for the GRASSP "Quantitative Prehension" component (0.78), and lowest for the GRASSP "Sensibility" component (0.54). In contrast to comparable studies in stroke survivors, movement smoothness was least beneficial for predicting clinical scores in SCI. Prediction of upper-limb clinical scores in SCI is feasible using measurements from a robotic rehabilitation device, without the need for dedicated assessment procedures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".