Impairments of the arm and hand are highly correlated during subacute stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The classical description of poststroke upper limb impairment follows a proximalto-distal impairment gradient. Previous studies are equivocal on whether the hand is more impaired than the arm.Objective: To compare impairment of the arm and hand during subacute stroke.Method: A total of 73 individuals were evaluated for impairment of the upper limb within 30 days (early subacute) and within 90–150 days (late subacute) of stroke. Impairments were quantified using the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment (CMSA) for the arm and hand, Purdue Pegboard task, and a robotic Visually Guided Reaching task.Results: In the early phase 42% of participants in the early phase and 59% in the late phase received the same CMSA score for the arm and hand, with 88% and 95% of participants in the early and late phases, respectively, receiving a 1-point difference. Strong correlations exist between the CMSA arm and hand scores (early r = 0.79, late r = 0.75), and moderate – strong correlations exist between CMSA arm and hand scores and Purdue Pegboard and Visually Guided Reaching performances (r = 0.66–0.81). No systematic differences were found between the arm and hand.Conclusion: Impairments in the arm and hand during subacute stroke are highly correlated and do not support the presence of a proximal-to-distal gradient. LAY ABSTRACTMotor impairments are a common occurrence after stroke, and are classically believed to present in a gradient from more impairment in the hand to less impairment in the arm. In this study, participants who had recently had a stroke underwent assessment with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment, the Purdue Pegboard task, and a Visually Guided Reaching task to quantify impairment and performance of the arm and hand. Levels of impairment in the arm and hand, as measured with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment, were found to be highly correlated. The study also showed strong correlations between quantitative measures of performance for both the arm and hand. Overall, our results do not support the presence of a proximal-to-distal gradient of impairment during subacute stroke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".