Grasp Analysis in the Home Environment as a Measure of Hand Function After Cervical Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Following a spinal cord injury, regaining hand function is a top priority. Current hand assessments are conducted in clinics, which may not fully represent real-world hand function. Grasp strategies used in the home environment are an important consideration when examining the impact of rehabilitation interventions. Objective The main objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between grasp use at home and clinical scores. Method We used a previously collected dataset in which 21 individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCI) recorded egocentric video while performing activities of daily living in their homes. We manually annotated 4432 hand-object interactions into power, precision, intermediate, and non-prehensile grasps. We examined the distributions of grasp types used and their relationships with clinical assessments. Results Moderate to strong correlations were obtained between reliance on power grasp and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM; P < .05), the upper extremity motor score (UEMS; P < .01), and the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP) Prehension ( P < .01) and Strength ( P < .01). Negative correlations were observed between the proportion of non-prehensile grasping and SCIM ( P < .05), UEMS ( P < .05), and GRASSP Prehension ( P < .01) and Strength ( P < .01). Conclusion The types of grasp types used in naturalistic activities at home are related to upper limb impairment after cervical SCI. This study provides the first direct demonstration of the importance of hand grasp analysis in the home environment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".