An Overview of Acquired Brain Injury Rehabilitation Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize randomized controlled trials published in the acquired brain injury rehabilitation literature. SETTING: N/A. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. MAIN MEASURES: A total of 143 published randomized controlled trials in acquired brain injury rehabilitation literature from January 1980 to October 2012. Measures were area of research, number of studies, sample size, methodological quality, and country of origin. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in median sample sizes (P = .212; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.199-0.215) or PEDro scores (P = .492; 95% CI, .491-.510) between 4 research areas in acquired brain injury: sensory-motor, cognitive-communication, medical complications, and psychosocial. Between 1980 and 2012, there was no significant difference in median sample sizes (P = .202; 95% CI, 0.198-0.214). Median PEDro scores did not significantly improve between 1983-1987 (median = 4, interquartile range = 4.5) and 2008-2012 (median = 6, interquartile range = 2; P = .100; 95% CI, 0.093-0.105). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the need for more randomized controlled trials, increased sample sizes, and improved methodological quality to better guide clinical practice for acquired brain injury rehabilitation.
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 | 0.117 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".