MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015480487 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.tmp82

Abstract TMP82: Young Stroke Questionnaire (YSQ): A Patient Centered Stroke Outcome Measure

2020· article· en· W3015480487 on OpenAlexaff
Nishanth Kodumuri, Amy Edmunds, Brittiny McMillian, A E Grant, Phil Fleming, Alexandra Vezzetti, Ravish Kothari, Souvik Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsFleming College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Cronbach's alphaModified Rankin ScalePhysical therapyNeurologyYoung adultScale (ratio)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometricsClinical psychologyGerontologyIschemic strokePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Stroke is a leading cause of disability affecting patients and their caregivers. Current outcome measures inadequately quantify the impact of stroke in young patients (≤65) in terms of managing education, career, and family. Methods: This study assessed the reliability and discriminate validity of the Young Stroke Questionnaire (YSQ) to further build upon the knowledge and understanding of young stroke patients and the specific needs for management and long-term outcomes relevant to young stroke survivors. The initial questionnaire evolved from a focus group comprised of 6 young stroke survivors and 6 stroke neurologists centralized around 4 patient-centered domains: work and leisure, relationships, wellbeing, and healthcare resources. To determine the reliability and discriminate validity of YSQ, 100 young stroke survivors were consented at the Neurology clinic. Standardized clinical assessments completed included the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Additionally, all patients were asked to complete the patient-centered questionnaire, YSQ. Results: We enrolled 100 patients (Mean age ± SD = 49.2 ± 11.7, 42 Males, 53% African-American, 44% White) into the YSQ validation study. Cronbach’s α coefficients for the four domains and the total scale were calculated to measure the internal consistency of the YSQ. The α coefficients were found to be high (work & leisure α = 0.88, relationships α = 0.82, wellbeing α= 0.84, healthcare resources α= 0.75), indicating the scale with 4 subdomains is internally consistent and reproducible. The discriminant validity of the scale was assessed by comparing the means of each subdomain of YSQ among healthy subjects to the groups of stroke patients as defined by the mRS. YSQ was able to differentiate healthy subjects from subjects with varying degree of disability, as defined by the modified Rankin scale ( work and leisure p< 0.0001, relationships p< 0.0001, wellbeing p< 0.0001, Healthcare resources p= 0.017) Conclusions: Standardized clinical assessments are not sensitive to disabilities in young stroke survivors. When compared to standardized clinical assessments, the YSQ is significantly capable of differentiating the young survivor perspective of the impact of stroke in all the four subdomains.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→