MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408408577 · doi:10.1080/10749357.2025.2457282

Test-retest reliability and practice effects of shape trail test in stroke patients

2025· article· en· W4408408577 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liu Xiu-zhen, Ye Zhang, Fang Li, Lin Liu, Jubao Du, Wei Qun Song

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Stroke (engine)Reliability (semiconductor)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicineReliability engineeringPhysical therapyEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Executive dysfunction after stroke greatly affects stroke prognosis, so clinicians need to urgently focus on screening for it. This study aims to offer valuable data for research on post-stroke executive dysfunction by evaluating the test-retest reliability of the Shape Trail Test (STT) and the influence of the practice effect on scores among stroke patients.Methods A total of 75 subacute stroke patients were included in the study. Based on the cutoff value for mild cognitive impairment(MCI) in the Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic, the patients were divided into an MCI group and a cognitively normal (CN) group. The patients were asked to complete the Shape Trail Test (STT) on two different occasions within three days. The time taken to complete Part A and Part B were denoted as STT-A and STT-B respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC), Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were used as metrics, and a paired t test was employed to evaluate the practice effect.Results (1) The actual number of patients who completed the research was 71. The STT showed great test-retest reliability in stroke patients (ICC, STTA: 0.927 VS STTB: 0.881; Spearman, STTA: 0.824 VS STTB: 0.713, n = 71). The test-retest reliability of STTA is higher than that of STTB (ICC, STTA = 0.927>STTB = 0.881; Spearman, STTA = 0.824>STTB = 0.713; n = 71). The reliability of the MCI group was higher than that of the CN group (ICC, STTA:MCI = 0.94>CN = 0.71; STTB:MCI = 0.87>CN = 0.64). (2) Subgroup analysis revealed distinct practice effects between the MCI and CN groups. The MCI group showed no practice effect, while the CN group had a partial one. In the CN group, practice did not significantly impact STT-A scores (p = 0.782), but did affect STT-B scores (p = 0.035). In contrast, in the MCI group, no significant practice effects on the STT were observed (p > 0.05).Conclusions STT’s test-retest reliability was moderate to high in stroke patients and varied by cognitive function. Subgroup analyses should precede assessments of STT’s test-retest reliability in stroke patients. Patients with cognitive dysfunction showed no significant practice effects. Given that this research is carried out specifically within the Chinese context, extreme care should be taken in extending the study’s findings to other populations.Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01322607

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Stroke RehabilitationSame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207