Validation of the human activity profile in stroke: A comparison of observed, proxy and self-reported scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the concurrent validity of the Human Activity Profile (HAP) with stroke and healthy control individuals, when reported by the subject or a proxy and compared to observed performance, used as gold standard; factors related to discrepancies; as well as to determine variables that could best predict physical activity levels. METHODS: A total of 24 stroke and 23 healthy control subjects took part in the study. Functional outcome measures included personal/demographic factors, HAP, the 10-meter walk, and cognition. RESULTS: Strong relationships were found between self-reported and observed scores for both groups (r=0.89-0.99). The relationships between proxy and observed scores were acceptable for stroke (r=0.80-0.87) but lower for control subjects (r=0.65-0.75), with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.69-0.89. Significant differences were found between proxy and observed scores for stroke, but not for control subjects. Discrepancies between scores showed little predictability from selected variables. For stroke subjects, the strongest variable explaining physical activity levels was walking speed (r2=43%) and the best combination of variables was walking speed plus cognition (r2=55%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported HAP was an excellent measure both for stroke and control subjects and related well to observed performance. Proxy reports appear to be valid for stroke subjects. HAP was significantly related to measures of walking speed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".