Profiling Somatosensory Impairment after Stroke: Characterizing Common “Fingerprints” of Impairment Using Unsupervised Machine Learning-Based Cluster Analysis of Quantitative Measures of the Upper Limb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Altered somatosensory function is common among stroke survivors, yet is often poorly characterized. Methods of profiling somatosensation that illustrate the variability in impairment within and across different modalities remain limited. We aimed to characterize post-stroke somatosensation profiles (“fingerprints”) of the upper limb using an unsupervised machine learning cluster analysis to capture hidden relationships between measures of touch, proprioception, and haptic object recognition. Raw data were pooled from six studies where multiple quantitative measures of upper limb somatosensation were collected from stroke survivors (n = 207) using the Tactile Discrimination Test (TDT), Wrist Position Sense Test (WPST) and functional Tactile Object Recognition Test (fTORT) on the contralesional and ipsilesional upper limbs. The Growing Self Organizing Map (GSOM) unsupervised machine learning algorithm was used to generate a topology-preserving two-dimensional mapping of the pooled data and then separate it into clusters. Signature profiles of somatosensory impairment across two modalities (TDT and WPST; n = 203) and three modalities (TDT, WPST, and fTORT; n = 141) were characterized for both hands. Distinct impairment subgroups were identified. The influence of background and clinical variables was also modelled. The study provided evidence of the utility of unsupervised cluster analysis that can profile stroke survivor signatures of somatosensory impairment, which may inform improved diagnosis and characterization of impairment patterns.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".