Robotic Rigor: Validity of the Kinarm End-Point Robot Visually Guided Reaching Test in Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine whether robotic metrics: (1) correlate with the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT; good convergent validity); and (2) differentiate between those self-reporting "some hand problems" versus "no hand problems" (good criterion validity). Design Cross-sectional validation analyses. Setting Rehabilitation research laboratory located within a hospital. Participants People with multiple sclerosis self-reporting "some" (n=21; mean age, 52.52±10.69 y; females, n=16; disease duration, 18.81±10.38 y) versus "no" (n=21; age, 51.24±12.73 y; females, n=14; disease duration, 17.71±10.16 y) hand problems. Main Outcome Measures We assessed hand function using the criterion standard 9HPT and robotic testing. Robotic outcomes included an overall task score, as well as 2 movement planning (ie, reaction time and initial direction angle) and 2 movement correction (ie, movement time and path length ratio) spatiotemporal values. We identified participants reporting "some" versus "no" hand problems via the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29. We analyzed our nonparametric data using a Mann–Whitney U test and Spearman rank-order correlation. Results Those reporting "some hand problems" included more right-handed individuals ( P =.038); otherwise, the 2 groups were characteristically similar. Visually guided reaching task score and movement planning but not movement correction spatiotemporal values demonstrated moderate correlations with 9HPT for both the dominant (reaction time: r =0.489, P =.001; initial direction angle: r =0.429, P =.005) and nondominant (reaction time: r =0.521, P <.001; initial direction angle: r =0.321, P =.038) side. Further, reaction time, but not 9HPT or any other robotic outcome, differentiated between the 2 groups ( P =.036); those reporting "no hand problems" moved faster (ie, dominant side: 0.2810 [0.2605-0.3215] vs 0.3400 [0.2735-0.3725] s). Conclusions Robotic test metrics demonstrated modest criterion and convergent validity in multiple sclerosis, with reaction time being the most compelling. When looking beyond the task score, spatiotemporal robotic measures may help discern subtle multiple sclerosis-related hand problems. Movement planning spatiotemporal values appear more meaningful than movement correction and could prove fruitful as the target for future intervention strategies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".