Validity of Novel Outcome Measures for Hand Function Performance After Stroke Using Egocentric Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating upper limb (UL) interventions after stroke calls for outcome measures that describe impact on daily life in the community. UL use ratio has been used to quantify the performance domain of UL function, but generally focuses on arm use only. A hand use ratio could provide additional information about UL function after stroke. Additionally, a ratio based on the role of the more-affected hand in bilateral activities (stabilizer or manipulator) may also reflect hand function recovery. Egocentric video is a novel modality that can record both dynamic and static hand use and hand roles at home after stroke. OBJECTIVE: To validate hand use and hand role ratios from egocentric video against standardized clinical UL assessments. METHODS: Twenty-four stroke survivors recorded daily tasks in a home simulation laboratory and their daily routines at home using egocentric cameras. Spearman's correlation was used to compare the ratios with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Motor Activity Log-30 (MAL, Amount of Use (AoU), and Quality of Movement (QoM)). RESULTS: Hand use ratio significantly correlated with the FMA-UE (0.60, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.81), ARAT (0.44, CI: 0.04, 0.72), MAL-AoU (0.80, CI: 0.59, 0.91), and MAL-QoM (0.79, CI: 0.57, 0.91). Hand role ratio had no significant correlations with the assessments. CONCLUSION: Hand use ratio automatically extracted from egocentric video, but not hand role ratio, was found to be a valid measure of hand function performance in our sample. Further investigation is necessary to interpret hand role information.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".