Is Sex a Prognostic Factor in Stroke Rehabilitation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to assess the specific influence of sex on rehabilitation results. METHODS: A case-control study in 440 consecutive patients with sequelae of first ischemic stroke were enrolled in 2 subgroups (males and females) and matched for severity of stroke (evaluated by means of the Canadian Neurological Scale), age (within 1 year), and onset-admission interval (within 3 days). Functional data, evaluated by means of the Barthel Index and the Rivermead Mobility Index, were compared between subgroups. Logistic regressions were used to clarify the role of sex in affecting global autonomy and mobility. RESULTS: After rehabilitation treatment, a sex-related difference was observed essentially in the higher levels of response. Indeed, more men than women reached independence in both stair climbing and activities of daily living (ADL), with a higher response and effectiveness on mobility. In multivariate analyses, male patients had a 3 times higher probability than female patients of good autonomy in both stair climbing and ADL (odds ratio [OR]=3.22; 95% CI, 1.67 to 6.18 and OR=2.92; 95% CI, 1.63 to 5.42, respectively). Conversely, female patients had a higher risk of walking with a cane (OR=1.69; 95%, CI 1.04 to 2.76) or of partial autonomy with respect to ADL (OR=1.90; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.91). No significant difference was found for the other functional parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Female sex is a mildly unfavorable prognostic factor in rehabilitation results after stroke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".