Optimizing Stroke Detection Using Evidential Networks and Uncertainty-Based Refinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating neurological impairments post-stroke is essential for assessing treatment efficacy and managing subsequent disabilities. Conventional clinical assessment methods depend largely on clinicians' visual and physical evaluations, resulting in coarse rating systems that frequently miss subtle impairments or improvements. Interactive robotic devices, like the Kinarm Exoskeleton system, are transforming the assessment of motor impairments by offering precise and objective movement measurements. In this study, we analyzed kinematic data from 337 stroke patients and 368 healthy controls performing three Kinarm tasks. Using deep learning methods, particularly an evidential network, we distinguished impaired participants from healthy controls while generating measures of prediction uncertainty. By retraining the network with the least uncertain samples and refining the test set by excluding the top 10% most uncertain samples, we improved the sensitivity of detecting subtle impairments in minimally impaired stroke patients (those scoring normal on the CMSA) from 0.55 to 0.75. We further extended the model to detect impairments associated with transient ischemic attack (TIA), resulting in an increased detection accuracy from 0.86 to 0.92. The model's ability to identify subtle motor deficits, even in TIA patients who show no observable symptoms on standard clinical exams, highlights its significant clinical utility. Detecting TIA is critical, as individuals who experience a TIA have a substantially higher risk of recurrent stroke. This work highlights the immense potential of integrating deep learning with uncertainty estimation to enhance the detection of stroke-related impairments, potentially paving the way for personalized post-stroke rehabilitation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".