Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurologists use a variety of tests to detect subtle upper motor neuron lesion causing a mild motor impairment of the upper limb. The forearm and index finger rolling tests are some of these. Their sensitivity varies, but in general these tests appear to be more likely to be abnormal in mild motor impairment of the arm and hand due to a cortico-spinal tract lesion than tests of power, muscle tone or reflexes. Thumb rolling involves more distal limb segments than forearm rolling and distal limb segments are typically more affected than proximal limb segments after cerebral lesions to the cortico-spinal tract. METHODS: Thumb rolling was tested, in comparison to pronator drift, forearm rolling and index finger rolling, for its sensitivity to detect a cerebral lesion of the cortico-spinal tract in 17 consecutive patients with mild pure motor stroke affecting only one arm and hand. RESULTS: Thumb rolling is more sensitive (88%) than pronator drift (47%), forearm rolling (65%) and index finger rolling (65%) to detect a cerebral lesion of the cortico-spinal tract in mild pure motor stroke of the upper limb. CONCLUSION: The thumb rolling test may be a valuable adjunct clinical test to detect a subtle lesion of the cortico-spinal tract causing mild pure motor stroke of the arm and hand when the remainder of routine neurological examination is unremarkable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".