Assessing Upper Limb Motor Function in the Immediate Post-Stroke Period using Accelerometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in machine learning have enabled the use of long-term accelerometry data collection and machine learning algorithms to quickly and accurately detect upper limb weakness. Although accelerometry-derived measurements are commonly used in long-term rehabilitation studies, this study aimed to determine whether similar techniques could be used to detect short-term changes in upper limb motor function in patients who were hospitalized soon after experiencing a stroke. Six binary classification models were created by training on variable data window times of paretic upper limb accelerometer feature data, and four preliminary visualizations were proposed to provide health professionals with information on the duration, intensity, symmetry, and variability of upper limb activity. The models were evaluated using Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores to classify the data into two classes: severe or moderately severe motor function. The AUC scores ranged from 0.72 to 0.94, with higher scores indicating better model performance. While this study provides a preliminary assessment of the efficacy of using accelerometry and machine learning to characterize upper limb motor function immediately following a stroke, the results suggest that further investigation is warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".