MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977415835 · doi:10.1310/djwk-a0v4-lk08-ftea

Evidence-Based Practice and Setting Basic Standards for Stroke Rehabilitation in Canada

2006· review· en· W1977415835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Teasell, Norine Foley, Sanjit K. Bhogal, Stephen D. Bagg, Jeffrey W. Jutai

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareParkwood InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationStroke (engine)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is a concern that the consistency of care in stroke rehabilitation appears to vary significantly among practice settings within Canada. Based upon an evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation, a group of physiatrists from across Canada agreed to some basic standards for stroke rehabilitation. The following standards were deemed to be critical to providing effective stroke rehabilitation care: early assessment and quick access to specialized interdisciplinary rehabilitation, appropriate intensity of therapies, availability of outpatient therapy, appropriate community supports, and careful attention to secondary prevention of stroke. Providing stroke rehabilitation care consistently within these standards remains a challenge, particularly given the potential initial costs, despite significant improvements in patient outcomes and quality of life. Nevertheless, these standards should be the expectation of stroke patients, essentially forming a stroke rehabilitation "bill of rights."

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Stroke RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207