ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications2025
AN INTELLIGIBLE AI-DRIVEN DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR POSTSTROKE MOBILITY ASSESSMENT.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Long-term mobility impairment is a sequel of stroke victims which requires intensive medical and physiotherapeutic care. Detailed assessment of therapeutic success is relevant to achieving efficacy, but requires expert knowledge, since mobility disorders are complex. Increasing shortage of qualified staff and larger numbers of patients are thus major problems in this field. To meet these challenges, we show that machine learning algorithms can reproduce expert mobility assessment from gait data with acceptable accuracy, supporting poststroke evaluation while giving intelligible feedback into how the assessments were generated. Methods: A total of 100 hemiparetic stroke patients received clinical examinations followed by instrumented gait analysis and were assigned a Stroke Mobility Score by an interdisciplinary expert board. From each measured stride pair, 680 features were extracted. After removing non-discriminating features, two regression models were trained: a decision tree and a multilayer perceptron artificial neural network. Results: The models yielded good to very good (Cohen) coefficients of determination. The interpretable decision-trees and the explanations obtained from the neural network unveiled key features supporting the mobility assessments. Conclusion: The automated assessments agree well with those of the experts. Synergistic interactions between system, and experts via the computed key features may improve quality in diagnosis and objectify therapeutic targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.