The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): A Comparison With Other Measures Used to Evaluate Effects of Stroke and Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) is a relatively new measure of voluntary movement and basic mobility. The main objectives of this study were: (1) to examine the relationship of the STREAM to other measures of impairment and disability and (2) to compare its usefulness for evaluating effects of stroke and rehabilitation and for assessing change over time with that of other measures of impairment and disability. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The performance of 63 patients with acute stroke on the STREAM and other measures of impairment and disability was evaluated during the first week after stroke and 4 weeks and 3 months later. RESULTS: Scores on the STREAM were associated with scores on the Box and Block test, Balance Scale, Barthel Index, gait speed, and the Timed "Up Go" Test (with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from .57 to .80) and were associated with categories of the Barthel Index and Balance Scale. The STREAM's ability to predict discharge destination from the acute care hospital, as well as to predict gait speed and Barthel Index scores at 3 months poststroke, was comparable to that of other commonly used measures. Standardized response mean estimates provided supporting evidence for the ability of the STREAM to reflect change over time. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results obtained with the STREAM, as compared with other measures of impairment and disability in people with stroke, suggest that it may be useful in clinical practice and research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".