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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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