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 OpenAlex
Marjorie Julien, Justine D'Amours, Marie-Pier Leduc, Annie-Claude Côté, Rachel Oziel Rodier, Louise Demers, Johanne Desrosiers

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
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