MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999775730

Developing a User-friendly System for Home-based Monitoring of Arm Use after Stroke

2025· article· en· W6999775730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalCommons-IMSA (Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionTSG101HyporeflexiaArticular cartilage damageDiafiltrationGestational period
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke rehabilitation faces challenges in providing real-time care outside clinical settings, as they require in-person supervision and lack personalized monitoring of continuous progression in stroke rehabilitation. Recent advances in wearable sensors (e.g., inertial measurement unit (IMU), electromyography (EMG)) offer avenues to longitudinally track arm use in the real-world setting, e.g. during activities of daily living at home. However, challenges remain in translating such technology mainly due to practical barriers in transferring the technical knowledge and skills required for operating the sensor/device to acquire data. The main objective of this project was to develop a user-friendly system that consists of: 1) “easy-to-don and-doff” wearable sensors, 2) “easy-to-use” graphical user interface (GUI) for data acquisition, and 3) “on-the-go” receiver unit for reliable wireless connection. To this end, we used Myo Armband (Thalmic Labs, CANADA), which is a consumer-grade bracelet sensor capable of capturing IMU data and EMG signals to assess movement and muscle activity that communicates via bluetooth. We developed a Python-based GUI that collects and displays real-time data visualization for the two Myo Armbands on the upper arm and forearm. This system has enabled real-time monitoring, reliable tracking, and scalable rehabilitation, enhancing accessibility, engagement, and recovery outcome.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalCommons-IMSA (Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy)Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207