Clinical, Neuroimaging and Robotic Measures Predict Long-Term Proprioceptive Impairments following Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proprioceptive impairments occur in ~50% of stroke survivors, with 20-40% still impaired six months post-stroke. Early identification of those likely to have persistent impairments is key to personalizing rehabilitation strategies and reducing long-term proprioceptive impairments. In this study, clinical, neuroimaging and robotic measures were used to predict proprioceptive impairments at six months post-stroke on a robotic assessment of proprioception. Clinical assessments, neuroimaging, and a robotic arm position matching (APM) task were performed for 133 stroke participants two weeks post-stroke (12.4 ± 8.4 days). The APM task was also performed six months post-stroke (191.2 ± 18.0 days). Robotics allow more precise measurements of proprioception than clinical assessments. Consequently, an overall APM Task Score was used as ground truth to classify proprioceptive impairments at six months post-stroke. Other APM performance parameters from the two-week assessment were used as predictive features. Clinical assessments included the Thumb Localisation Test (TLT), Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and demographic information (age, sex and affected arm). Logistic regression classifiers were trained to predict proprioceptive impairments at six months post-stroke using data collected two weeks post-stroke. Models containing robotic features, either alone or in conjunction with clinical and neuroimaging features, had a greater area under the curve (AUC) and lower Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) than models which only contained clinical or neuroimaging features. All models performed similarly with regard to accuracy and F1-score (>70% accuracy). Robotic features were also among the most important when all features were combined into a single model. Predicting long-term proprioceptive impairments, using data collected as early as two weeks post-stroke, is feasible. Identifying those at risk of long-term impairments is an important step towards improving proprioceptive rehabilitation after a 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".