Exploring the Role of Accelerometers in the Measurement of Real World Upper-Limb Use After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ultimate goal of upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke is to promote real-world use, that is, use of the paretic upper-limb in everyday activities outside the clinic or laboratory. Although real-world use can be collected through self-report questionnaires, an objective indicator is preferred. Accelerometers are a promising tool. The current paper aims to explore the feasibility of accelerometers to measure upper-limb use after stroke and discuss the translation of this measurement tool into clinical practice. Accelerometers are non-invasive, wearable sensors that measure movement in arbitrary units called activity counts. Research to date indicates that activity counts are a reliable and valid index of upper-limb use. While most accelerometers are unable to distinguish between the type and quality of movements performed, recent advancements have used accelerometry data to produce clinically meaningful information for clinicians, patients, family and care givers. Despite this, widespread uptake in research and clinical environments remains limited. If uptake was enhanced, we could build a deeper understanding of how people with stroke use their arm in real-world environments. In order to facilitate greater uptake, however, there is a need for greater consistency in protocol development, accelerometer application and data interpretation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".