Key result
Automated Trunk Impairment Scale 2.0 matches physiotherapist assessments for clinical validity.
Why the study?
Manual physiotherapist assessments of trunk motor impairment after stroke are time consuming, depend on observer ability, and may reduce availability for rehabilitation work.
Does an automated scoring system for TIS 2.0 provide comparable validity to manual physiotherapist assessments in stroke survivors?
Does an automated scoring system for TIS 2.0 provide comparable validity to manual physiotherapist assessments in stroke survivors?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An automated scoring system for the Trunk Impairment Scale 2.0 demonstrates comparable validity to manual physiotherapist assessments in stroke survivors.
The Trunk Impairment Scale Version 2.0 (TIS 2.0) measures the motor impairment of the trunk after a stroke through the evaluation of dynamic sitting balance and co-ordination of trunk movement. Evaluations by physiotherapists depend on their ability in detecting minor changes in motion and observing limb movements and these can be time consuming and reduce their availability for rehabilitation work. An automated scoring system for TIS 2.0 was proposed to provide a more reproducible and standardized alternative to manual physiotherapist assessments. In the development phase, motion data from lay actors simulating stroke condition were collected using video motion capture system OpenCap. This data was utilized to create metrics and establish cut-off values for a rule-based classification. The discriminant abilities of the metrics were evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC). In the testing phase, the performance of the developed system was assessed on 19 stroke survivors (Berg Balance Scale score of 20–55) using both automated system and manual scoring by nine physiotherapists. The discriminant abilities of the features used in the dynamic sitting balance subscale are considered excellent to outstanding (AUC ≥ 0.717), and coordination subscale ranged from poor to outstanding (AUC ≥ 0.667). The automated scores aligned with physiotherapists’ scores, achieving an average percentage of agreement 71.1%. The total TIS 2.0 scores generated by the automated method showed moderate correlation with the sum of mode-determined task scores ( R = 0.526, p < 0.05). These findings suggest that the proposed automated system demonstrates comparable validity to assessments by physiotherapists.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yi et al. (2025) studied stroke (n=19). Automated Trunk Impairment Scale 2.0 scoring system vs. Manual scoring by physiotherapists was evaluated on Total TIS 2.0 scores correlation with manual scores (R 0.526, p=<0.05). An automated Trunk Impairment Scale 2.0 scoring system achieved 71.1% agreement and moderate correlation (R=0.526, p<0.05) with manual physiotherapist assessments in stroke survivors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: