Clinical evaluation of the refined clothespin relocation test
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The refined clothespin relocation test is a test used to evaluate the performance of a prosthesis user by analysing the compensatory motions and time to complete a grasping and placement exercise. The test has been studied previously with a motion capture laboratory and has now been adapted for a clinical setting. A comparison of prosthesis user to an able-bodied group is needed to determine efficacy as an assessment tool. OBJECTIVE: To modify the previous refined clothespin relocation test and assess whether it can distinguish between able-bodied and prosthesis users. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative analysis. METHODS: Forty-two able-bodied subjects and three prosthesis users completed the adapted refined clothespin relocation test protocol. Average refined clothespin relocation test scores describing the degree of compensatory movements and the time to complete the protocol were compared using a Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: = 0.43). CONCLUSION: Prosthesis users demonstrated larger compensations and longer completion times, as reflected in the refined clothespin relocation test final score. The refined clothespin relocation test has the potential to be a useful clinical tool to assess user performance on a functional task. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This preliminary study demonstrates that the adapted protocol can distinguish between the two groups based on refined clothespin relocation test score. A future multi-centre study is required using multiple raters and comparing it with the existing outcome measures to validate the refined clothespin relocation test and determine inter-rater reliability.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it