SCI-U: E-learning for patient education in spinal cord injury rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To develop an online patient education resource for use in spinal cord injury rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: The development process involved more than 100 subject-matter experts (SMEs) (rehabilitation professionals and consumers) from across Canada. Preliminary evaluation was conducted with 25 end-users. METHODS: An iterative development process was coordinated by a project team; SMEs (including patients) developed the content in working groups using wiki-based tools. Multiple rounds of feedback based on early prototypes helped improve the courses during development. RESULTS: Five courses were created, each featuring more than 45 minutes of video content and hundreds of media assets. Preliminary evaluation results indicate that users were satisfied by the courses and perceived them to be effective. CONCLUSIONS: This is an effective process for developing multimedia patient education resources; the involvement of patients in all parts of the process was particularly helpful. Future work will focus on implementation, integration into clinical practice and other delivery formats (smart phones, tablets).
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".