Standardized Measurement of Quality of Upper Limb Movement After Stroke: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations From the Second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable "metrics" task force developed consensus around the recognized need to add kinematic and kinetic movement quantification to its core recommendations for standardized measurements of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials. Specifically, we focused on measurement of the quality of upper limb movement. We agreed that the recommended protocols for measurement should be conceptually rigorous, reliable, valid and responsive to change. The recommended measurement protocols include four performance assays (i.e. 2D planar reaching, finger individuation, grip strength, and precision grip at body function level) and one functional task (3D drinking task at activity level) that address body function and activity respectively. This document describes the criteria for assessment and makes recommendations about the type of technology that should be used for reliable and valid movement capture. Standardization of kinematic measurement protocols will allow pooling of participant data across sites, thereby increasing sample size aiding meta-analyses of published trials, more detailed exploration of recovery profiles, the generation of new research questions with testable hypotheses, and development of new treatment approaches focused on impairment. We urge the clinical and research community to consider adopting these recommendations.
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 | 0.493 | 0.527 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".