Falling Through the Cracks: A Literature Review to Understand the Reality of Mild Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the existing literature on mild stroke, its consequences for patients and families, and the effectiveness of rehabilitation services targeting mild stroke. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted on Ovid (EMBASE and MEDLINE, 1950-2008), PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane (to 4th quarter 2008). Articles had to be written in French or English. The term "mild stroke" was combined with a variety of key words. Titles, abstracts, and results sections were screened, and the sample had to be composed of not greater-than 50% mild stroke. Two reviewers were involved in the selection process to ensure the research was reproducible and that all the literature was screened properly. RESULTS: Thirteen articles meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were found. Mild stroke survivors may present impairments that do not interfere with basic activities of daily living but do affect performance of complex tasks. The consequences for families remain unknown. Home interventions were found to help patients maximize their functions and reduce stroke sequelae. CONCLUSION: The majority of mild stroke survivors are sent home without referral to rehabilitation services although they present deficits that, if not addressed, can lead to deconditioning and impede community reengagement. The impact of mild stroke on families needs to be studied.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".