MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768952363 · doi:10.1080/02703181.2017.1356897

Responsiveness of the Box and Block Test with Older Adults in Rehabilitation

2017· article· en· W2768952363 on OpenAlexaff
Marjorie Julien, Justine D'Amours, Marie-Pier Leduc, Annie-Claude Côté, Rachel Oziel Rodier, Louise Demers, Johanne Desrosiers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationMedicineStroke (engine)Physical therapyTest (biology)Physical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: Study the responsiveness of the Box and Block Test (BBT) with older adults in rehabilitation. Methods: For a larger study on the responsiveness of several outcome measures, 264 older adults were recruited in rehabilitation units (RU) and day hospitals (DH) and assessed four times during their rehabilitation. For the present study, only the data for participants who had an impairment in at least one upper extremity were used (n = 87). The standardized response mean (SRM) and Guyatt Index (GI) were calculated. Analyses by sub-group were also performed. Results: The BBT's responsiveness coefficients were moderate (SRM: 0.59; GI: 0.60). They were higher for participants treated in a RU (0.80 and 0.69) and participants who had had a stroke (0.67 and 0.83). Conclusion: The BBT can detect changes in dexterity in older adults undergoing rehabilitation, especially those being treated in a RU and those who have had a stroke.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In GeriatricsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207