MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of post-stroke unilateral spatial neglect on goal-directed arm movements: systematic literature review

2015· review· en· W2091916990 on OpenAlexaff
Tatiana Ogourtsova, Philippe S. Archambault, Anouk Lamontagne

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyStroke (engine)PerceptionAction (physics)Affect (linguistics)Activities of daily livingCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicineCommunicationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unilateral spatial neglect (USN), a highly prevalent post-stroke impairment, refers to one's inability to orient or respond to stimuli located in the contralesional visual hemispace. Unilateral spatial neglect has been shown to strongly affect motor performance in functional activities, including non-affected upper extremity (UE) movements. To date, our understanding of the effects of USN on goal-directed UE movements is limited and comparing performance of individuals post-stroke with and without USN is required. OBJECTIVE: To determine, in individuals with stroke, how does the presence of USN, in comparison to the absence of USN, impacts different types of goal-directed movements of the non-affected UE. METHODS: The present review approach consisted of a comprehensive literature search, an assessment of the quality of the selected studies and qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies of moderate to high quality were selected. The USN-specific impairments were found in tasks that required a perceptual, memory-guided or delayed actions, and fewer impairments were found in tasks that required an immediate action to a predefined target. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that USN contributes to deficits observed in action execution with the non-effected UE that requires greater perceptual demands.

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)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Stroke RehabilitationSame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207