MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000905638 · doi:10.1310/aqe1-pcw1-fw9k-m01g

The Efficacy of Stroke Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Review

2003· review· en· W2000905638 on OpenAlex
Norine Foley, Robert Teasell, Sanjit K. Bhogal, Timothy J. Doherty, Mark Speechley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareParkwood Institute
FundersCanadian Stroke Network
KeywordsRehabilitationMedicineStroke (engine)InstitutionalisationRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials published from 1970-2002 was conducted to assess whether specialized inpatient stroke rehabilitation is associated with improved outcomes compared to conventional care. Twelve studies involving 2,813 patients were included for detailed review. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the PEDro Scale. The outcomes of death, functional outcome, length of hospital stay, and rates of institutionalization were compared between the intervention and control group(s). Improved functional outcomes and reduced length of hospital stays were reported among patients receiving specialized rehabilitation in the majority of studies (7/12 and 5/8, respectively), while no differences in mortality or institutionalization were reported between the groups.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.368 · 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