Participation after stroke: Comparing proxies’ and patients’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed: (i) to determine the level of agreement between responses of people with stroke and their proxies on a participation questionnaire, and (ii) to explore patient and proxy characteristics related to disagreement between their responses. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: A total of 40 community-dwelling people with stroke and their proxies (total n = 80). METHODS: Participants were evaluated separately in face-to-face interviews using the Assessment of Life Habits questionnaire (LIFE-H 3.1), which documents participation in daily activities and social roles. Sociodemographic and clinical variables, such as severity of motor impairment and cognitive functions, were also collected. RESULTS: Moderate to excellent agreement was found for the LIFE-H total score (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.82), daily activities (ICC: 0.87) and social roles (ICC: 0.73) sub-scores. Proxies perceived more disruptions in participation than patients in several life domains (p = 0.035-0.001), but the differences between their scores were generally not clinically meaningful. Severity of motor disabilities was the best predictor of disagreement between patients and proxies. CONCLUSION: These acceptable levels of agreement support the use of proxy responses to estimate the participation of people unable to respond themselves. However, some characteristics contributing to disagreement between respondents, such as severity of motor disabilities, should be considered when interpreting proxy information.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".