MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130982992 · doi:10.3233/ies-210101

Characterization of muscle strength using the strength domain of the stroke impact scale: An integrative review

2021· article· en· W3130982992 on OpenAlexaff
Richard W. Bohannon

Bibliographic record

VenueIsokinetics and Exercise Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychological interventionDiscriminant validityInclusion and exclusion criteriaMedicineWeaknessPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsInternal consistencyPsychiatryAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Muscle weakness is among the most common and obvious impairments in older adults and individuals with neurologic disorders. Although impairments in muscle strength are typically characterized using performance measures, the impairments have also been described using patient or observer-report. The objective of this review was to summarize literature describing use of a patient-report instrument, the Strength Domain (SD) of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), to grade strength impairments. METHODS: Peer-reviewed literature reporting SD scores for the SIS was identified using computerized searches of the CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus databases followed by hand searches. Potentially relevant articles were then mined for data on the participants tested, the SIS version used, scores documented, and clinimetric properties reported. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles were judged appropriate based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles involved more than 7000 residents of 22 countries. All articles focused on individuals with stroke (usually chronic), although one also included community-dwelling adults without stroke. The SIS version used was frequently unreported, but 3.0 was version most often specified. For articles reporting SD scale scores the mean ranged from 19.7 to 85.5. Construct (known groups, convergent, and discriminant) validity of the SD was supported by the literature as was its internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Responsiveness of the SD was evinced by numerous studies showing increases in SD scores with time or accompanying effective interventions. However, only one study indicated responsiveness using an anchor-based statistic. CONCLUSIONS: The SD of the SIS is a well-established and mostly clinimetrically sound patient-report measure of paretic limb strength among individuals with stroke. Its use with individuals with weakness accompanying aging or diagnoses other than stroke remains to be substantiated.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsokinetics and Exercise ScienceSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207