The AsTex ®: clinimetric properties of a new tool for evaluating hand sensation following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinimetric properties and clinical utility of the AsTex((R)), a new clinical tool for evaluation of hand sensation following stroke. DESIGN: The AsTex((R)) was administered on two occasions separated by a week to appraise test-retest reliability, and by three assessors on single occasion to establish inter-rater reliability. Pilot normative values were collected in an age-stratified sample. Clinical utility was evaluated based on ease of administration, ceiling and floor effects, and responsiveness to sensory recovery. PARTICIPANTS: Test-retest (n = 31) and inter-rater (n = 31) reliability and normative values (n = 95) for the AsTex((R)) were established in neurologically normal participants aged 18-85 years. Test-retest reliability was investigated in 22 individuals a mean of 46 months (range 12-125) post stroke and clinical utility was evaluated in an additional 24 subacute stroke participants a mean of 29.4 days (range 12-41) post stroke. MAIN MEASURE: The AsTex((R)). RESULTS: The AsTex((R)) demonstrated excellent test-retest (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.97-0.99) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.87) in neurologically normal participants. Test-retest reliability of the AsTex((R)) in individuals following stroke was excellent (ICC = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.68-0.94). The AsTex((R)) was simple to administer, demonstrated small standard error of measurement (0.14 mm), minimal floor and ceiling effects (12.5% and 8.3%) and excellent responsiveness (standardized response mean = 0.57) in subacute stroke participants. CONCLUSION: The AsTex((R)) is a reliable, clinically useful and responsive tool for evaluating hand sensation following 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 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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".