Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36810072›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Predicting later categories of upper limb activity from earlier clinical assessments following stroke: an exploratory analysis.

Jessica Barth, Keith R Lohse, Marghuretta D Bland, Catherine E Lang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jessica BarthProgram in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Keith R LohseProgram in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Marghuretta D BlandProgram in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Catherine E LangProgram in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. langc@wustl.edu.

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (TL1)TL1TR002344 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Jay F. Piccirillo · 2017 to 2026
$8.5M
DOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAM IN MOVEMENT SCIENCET32HD007434 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Michael D Harris, Catherine Lang · 1993 to 2026
$4.2M
Translation of in-clinic Gains to Gains in Daily Life After StrokeR01HD068290 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI LANG, CATHERINE · 2012 to 2021
$4.0M
Translation of In-Clinic Gains to Gains in Daily LifeR37HD068290 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Catherine Lang · 2022 to 2026
$2.7M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002344NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD068290NICHD NIH HHS R37 HD068290NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007434NIH HHS R01HD068290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccelerometers allow for direct measurement of upper limb (UL) activity. Recently, multi-dimensional categories of UL performance have been formed to provide a more complete measure of UL use in daily life. Prediction of motor outcomes after stroke have tremendous clinical utility and a next step is to explore what factors might predict someone's subsequent UL performance category. PURPOSE: To explore how different machine learning techniques can be used to understand how clinical measures and participant demographics captured early after stroke are associated with the subsequent UL performance categories.

methodsThis study analyzed data from two time points from a previous cohort (n = 54). Data used was participant characteristics and clinical measures from early after stroke and a previously established category of UL performance at a later post stroke time point. Different machine learning techniques (a single decision tree, bagged trees, and random forests) were used to build predictive models with different input variables. Model performance was quantified with the explanatory power (in-sample accuracy), predictive power (out-of-bag estimate of error), and variable importance.

resultsA total of seven models were built, including one single decision tree, three bagged trees, and three random forests. Measures of UL impairment and capacity were the most important predictors of the subsequent UL performance category, regardless of the machine learning algorithm used. Other non-motor clinical measures emerged as key predictors, while participant demographics predictors (with the exception of age) were generally less important across the models. Models built with the bagging algorithms outperformed the single decision tree for in-sample accuracy (26-30% better classification) but had only modest cross-validation accuracy (48-55% out of bag classification).

conclusionsUL clinical measures were the most important predictors of the subsequent UL performance category in this exploratory analysis regardless of the machine learning algorithm used. Interestingly, cognitive and affective measures emerged as important predictors when the number of input variables was expanded. These results reinforce that UL performance, in vivo, is not a simple product of body functions nor the capacity for movement, instead being a complex phenomenon dependent on many physiological and psychological factors. Utilizing machine learning, this exploratory analysis is a productive step toward the prediction of UL performance. Trial registration NA.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansMotor ActivityMovementUpper ExtremityAccelerometryOutcome assessmentsRehabilitationStrokeSupervised machine learningUpper extremity

Identifiers

PMID36810072
PMCPMC9945671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.