Factors associated with upper extremity use after stroke: a scoping review of accelerometry studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A discrepancy between the level of impairment at the upper extremity (UE) and its use in activities of daily life is frequently observed in individuals who have experienced a stroke. Wrist-worn accelerometers allow an objective and valid measure of UE use in everyday life. Accelerometer studies have shown that a wide range of factors beyond UE impairment can influence UE use. This scoping review aims to identify factors associated with UE use and to investigate the influence of different types of accelerometry metrics on these associations. METHOD: A search using CINHAL, Embase, MEDLINE, Compendex, and Web of Science Core Collection databases was performed. Studies that assessed the association between UE use quantified with accelerometers and factors related to the person or their environment in individuals with stroke were included. Data related to study design, participants characteristics, accelerometry methodology (absolute vs. relative UE use metrics), and associations with personal and environmental factors were extracted. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included. Multiple studies consistently reported associations between relative UE use and stroke severity, UE motor impairment, unimanual capacity, bimanual capacity, and mobility. In contrast, there were inconsistent associations with factors such as neglect and concordance between dominance and side of paresis and a consistent lack of association between relative UE use and time since stroke, sex, and age. Metrics of absolute paretic UE use yielded different results regarding their association with personal and environmental factors, as they were more influenced by factors related to physical activity and less associated with factors related to UE capacity. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers should recognize the complexity of the relationship between UE use and impairment and consider additional factors when selecting assessments during rehabilitation to identify patients at risk of underutilizing their paretic arm in daily life. Future research in this domain should preconize relative UE use metrics or multi-sensors method to control for the effect of physical activity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".