ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2026
A Streamlined 4-item Wolf Motor Function Test for Efficient Assessment of Upper Extremity Motor Function in Chronic Stroke Survivors.
Article in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundThe Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) is a well-recognized measure for assessing upper extremity motor function in stroke rehabilitation. However, prolonged administration time limits the WMFT in clinical use.ObjectiveThis study aimed to reduce the number of WMFT tasks using machine learning and explore its measurement structure and psychometric properties, using data from 3 stroke rehabilitation trials that together engaged 543 participants with a wide range of motor impairment during subacute and chronic recovery phases.MethodsWMFT performance time data were converted to rates and outliers were eliminated using multivariate normality tests. Random forest regression with the elbow method was employed to determine the optimal number of items in the WMFT. Further, a machine learning technique with cross-validation and bootstrapping was used to select items. We used confirmatory factor analysis to determine the measurement structure of the original and shortened version of WMFT. Psychometric properties of the shortened version were also assessed.ResultsMachine learning-based item reduction identified 4 items (Hand to Table, Hand to Box, Extend Elbow Without Weight, and Lift Can) as representative tasks. Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor structure for both original and shorten versions, comprising non-manipulative/transport and manipulative/dexterity factors. WMFT-4 showed strong convergent validity with WMFT-15 (R = 0.98,
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.