Assessing sensor-derived features from a wrist-worn wearable device as indicators of upper extremity function in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury. (2025)¶
Status: pending Scraped: 2026-08-12 Source: semantic_scholar Relevance: Related
Authors: Tessa Johnson, Cole Hagen, Donna L Coffman et al.
Citation: Tessa Johnson, Cole Hagen, Donna L Coffman et al. (2025), Assessing sensor-derived features from a wrist-worn wearable device as indicators of upper extremity function in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury., semantic_scholar. Type: Determine after review
Abstract¶
OBJECTIVE
Key Contribution¶
Review and expand.
Design¶
Review and expand.
Key Results¶
Review and expand.
Impact¶
Review and expand.
Linked To¶
Add cross-references after review.
Data Quality Assessment¶
| Field | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Subject selection | How were subjects selected? Inclusion/exclusion criteria, sampling strategy, n=? Power analysis? |
| Data acquisition | How was data physically acquired? Device model (E4, Empatica, WHOOP, Polar, dedicated sensor), sampling rate, placement, firmware version. |
| Acquisition context | From whom, what were they doing during recording? Clinic, home, school, sleep-only, free-living, task-based? Naturalistic or controlled? |
| Gold standard labels | How were outcome events defined? Clinician-validated scale (ABCD, ABC, CAAS, VAS), event logs, direct observation, chart review? Inter-rater reliability reported? |
| Data validation | How were data fields validated? Artifact rejection, signal quality indices, cross-modal checks, manual inspection, automated QC pipeline? |
| Missingness | n=X subjects — do all have complete data? Missing at random, missing completely at random, or missing not at random? Is missingness correlated with outcome? |