Examining Sex Differences in Relationships Between Subjective and Objective Measures of Upper Extremity Motor Impairment in a Sample of Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rehabilitation professionals use subjective and objective outcome measures to assess stroke-related impact and impairment. Understanding if subjective and objective findings correlate among stroke survivors, especially if these associations differ between females and males, can inform care decisions. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional design was used, with data selected from subacute to chronic stroke survivors on age, time since stroke, the hand domain from the Stroke Impact Scale version 3.0 (SIS-H), and the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FMUE) Assessment. Group differences were assessed for all outcomes based on sex and time poststroke. Separate correlations for females and males were performed between the subjective (SIS-H) and objective measures (FMUE) of upper limb function and impairment. RESULTS: Data from 148 participants (44 females) were included in this study. SIS-H was significantly correlated with FMUE in both females and males ( P s ≤ 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups' mean SIS-H or FMUE scores based on sex or time poststroke. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Subjective and objective measures of physical functioning were correlated in both females and males. Although we found no sex differences in our primary outcomes, the sample size of females was disproportionately lower than the males. This is consistent with an ongoing problem in the stroke recovery research field, where females are often underrepresented and understudied, and where females who experience higher levels of impairment are less likely to participate in research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".