MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1632761835 · doi:10.3233/nre-2007-22504

Pediatric stroke: Rehabilitation of focal injury in the developing brain

2007· article· en· W1632761835 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Kirton, Robyn Westmacott, Gabrielle deVeber

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurorehabilitation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationStroke (engine)NeuroimagingMedicineTraumatic brain injuryMultitudeDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review provides an overview of pediatric ischemic stroke to serve as a foundation for the discussion of rehabilitation strategies following focal injury in the developing brain. Cerebrovascular disease is an important cause of acquired brain injury in neonates and children. Ischemic strokes are caused by a multitude of risk factors and advances in neuroimaging have improved diagnosis and understanding of pathophysiology. Pediatric stroke provides the ideal model for the study of injury and recovery in a plastic nervous system. Though their brains likely posses greater potential and unique reorganizational skills, most children suffer neurological morbidity after stroke. An improved understanding of these systems is helping us understand, validate, and improve traditional approaches to rehabilitation while opening the door to new opportunities to improve outcome. All aspects of a patient's function, from the physical to psychological, including issues unique to children and their families, must be addressed and are reviewed. New advances and future directions for research are highlighted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurorehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207