ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Machine learning-based study of the predictors of clinically important change in patient-reported outcomes in bilateral upper-limb function in patients receiving robotic stroke rehabilitation.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When Robots Learn: Artificial Intelligence and the Next Human-Centered Era of Neurorehabilitation.Brain sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Robotic therapy is an effective approach for poststroke rehabilitation of upper-limb function. There is a need for research on predictors of clinically meaningful change in patient-reported outcome measures of bilateral arm function relevant for daily life function in stroke patients receiving robotic therapy. Methods: This secondary analysis included data from 123 participants who received robotic therapy. We constructed machine learning classification models to predict the achievement of meaningful recovery of patient-perceived outcome of bilateral upper limb function based on the ABILHAND questionnaire. Clinically meaningful recovery was defined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The prediction models included 14 potential predictors of three categories: demographic characteristics, stroke characteristics, and baseline assessment scores. The prediction models were built using four algorithms: logistic regression, k-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, and the random forest. Full models were built with all 14 potential predictors, and parsimonious models were built with the most important predictors identified by feature selection. Results: The prediction accuracy of the best-performing full models was 0.76 for the anchor-based MCID and 0.80 for the distribution-based MCID; the corresponding areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.75 and 0.84, respectively. The parsimonious models performed worse overall. For both MCID values, the most important predictors of recovery were time since stroke, the Wolf Motor Function Test-Time score, and the Stroke Impact Scale-Physical function score. When recovery was defined by the anchor-based MCID, the baseline ABILHAND and Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory scores were among the most important predictors. When recovery was defined by the distribution-based MCID, sex and stroke diagnosis were predictive of recovery. Conclusions: The time post onset of stroke, the speed of performing functional tasks, and self-perceived physical function were identified as the most important predictors of improvements in self-perceived function of bilateral upper limbs in daily activities after robotic therapy. The findings may inform clinicians about characteristics of patients with stroke who are more likely to benefit from robotic therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.