The Cone Evasion Walk test: Reliability and validity in acute stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To estimate the reliability and validity of the Cone Evasion Walk test (CEW), a new test assessing the ability to evade obstacles, in people with acute stroke. Methods To estimate the reliability of the CEW, video recordings of 20 people with acute stroke performing the test were assessed by 10 physiotherapists on two occasions, resulting in a total of 400 ratings. Patients performed the CEW ( n = 221), functional ambulation classification (FAC; n = 204), Timed Up and Go (TUG; n = 173), TUG cognitive (TUG‐cog; n = 139), Serial 7s attention task from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA‐S7; n = 127), and the Star Cancellation Test (SCT; n = 151). These tests and side of lesion ( n = 143) were used to examine construct validity. The predictive validity was evaluated in relation to falls during the following 6 months ( n = 203). Results The intraclass correlation coefficients for intrarater and interrater reliability were 0.88–0.98. For validity, there were significant correlations between the CEW and FAC ( r s = −0.67), TUG ( r s = 0.45), MoCA‐S7 ( r s = −0.36), and SCT total score ( r s = −0.36). There was a significant correlation between the number of cones touched on the left side and the proportion of cancelled stars on the left ( r s = −0.23) and right ( r s = 0.23) side in the SCT. Among right hemisphere stroke participants ( n = 79), significantly more persons hit cones on the left side ( n = 25) than the right side ( n = 8), whereas among those with a left hemisphere stroke ( n = 64) significantly more persons hit cones on the right side ( n = 11) than the left ( n = 3). Cox regression showed that participants who touched four to eight cones had an increased risk of falls over time (hazard ratio 2.11, 95% CI [1.07, 4.17]) compared with those who touched none. Conclusion The new CEW test was reliable and valid in assessing the ability to evade obstacles while walking and to predict falls in patients with acute 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".