Development and validation of two new sensory tests of the hand for patients with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish validity and reliability of two new sensory tests evaluating moving (MTP) and sustained (STP) touch-pressure and their relationship to hand function for patients with stroke. The STP had four components in which a light or heavy ball was applied passively or held actively. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight participants with hemiparesis (1-109 months) from rehabilitation hospitals or outpatient programmes. DESIGN: Content validity was established. Then reliability and concurrent and construct validity were determined. Sensation was compared with hand functional ability using the Modified Moberg recognition task, the Box and Block test and one task of the TEMPA test. RESULTS: Reliability: Both types of reliability were significant for MTP (ICC = 0.92) and all components of STP (ICC = 0.62 to 0.92). Concurrent validity: MTP and STP correlated significantly (r = -0.39 to -0.83) with the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament test used as a 'gold standard' comparison. Construct validity: MTP was significantly related to Moberg (r = 0.49). Three of four components of STP correlated with TEMPA (r = 0.49-0.53) and Moberg (0.45-0.71). Only STP (heavy ball) correlated with Box and Block (0.42-0.48). Of the four components of STP, only the passive STP (light ball) was not related to hand function. CONCLUSION: The new sensory tests of moving, and three components of sustained touch-pressure were reliable. The passive STP (light ball) was discarded. All but this test were relevant to the two functional roles of sensation: exploration for MTP and dexterity during holding for STP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".