MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2312666420 · doi:10.1109/embc.2014.6944821

Reduction of stroke assessment time for visually guided reaching task on KINARM exoskeleton robot

2014· article· en· W2312666420 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Mostafavi, Sean P. Dukelow, Janice Glasgow, Stephen H. Scott, Parvin Mousavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonComputer scienceTask (project management)RobotArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Human–computer interactionMachine learningSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robotic technologies provide objective, highly reliable tools for assessment of brain function following stroke. KINARM is an exoskeleton device that quantifies sensorimotor brain function using a visually guided reaching task among many other behavioral tasks. As further tasks are developed to more broadly assess different aspects of behavior using the robot, techniques and approaches are required to reduce the time it takes to complete each task. The present study investigates how the value of robot-measured parameters changes under alternative schemes that significantly reduce assessment time compared to the current assessment protocol for the visually guided reaching task. Results of the study are validated by addressing an important diagnostic question using an SVM classifier, showing that the alternative schemes provide nearly identical performance in terms of classification sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→