Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Mood, Cognition and Fatigue Following Stroke practice guidelines, update 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year, approximately 62 000 people with stroke and transient ischemic attack are treated in Canadian hospitals, and the evidence suggests one-third or more will experience vascular-cognitive impairment, and/or intractable fatigue, either alone or in combination. The 2015 update of the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Mood, Cognition and Fatigue Module guideline is a comprehensive summary of current evidence-based recommendations for clinicians in a range of settings, who provide care to patients following stroke. The three consequences of stroke that are the focus of the this guideline (poststroke depression, vascular cognitive impairment, and fatigue) have high incidence rates and significant impact on the lives of people who have had a stroke, impede recovery, and result in worse long-term outcomes. Significant practice variations and gaps in the research evidence have been reported for initial screening and in-depth assessment of stroke patients for these conditions. Also of concern, an increased number of family members and informal caregivers may also experience depressive symptoms in the poststroke recovery phase which further impact patient recovery. These factors emphasize the need for a system of care that ensures screening occurs as a standard and consistent component of clinical practice across settings as stroke patients transition from acute care to active rehabilitation and reintegration into their community. Additionally, building system capacity to ensure access to appropriate specialists for treatment and ongoing management of stroke survivors with these conditions is another great challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".