MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021215848 · doi:10.1002/nur.10084

Evolution of the caregiving experience in the initial 2 years following stroke

2003· article· en· W2021215848 on OpenAlexaff
Carole L. White, Nancy E. Mayo, James A. Hanley, Sharon Wood-Dauphinée

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)GerontologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between stroke survivor and family caregiver factors and the caregiver's health-related quality of life (HRQL) and overall quality of life (QoL) were examined in 97 dyads during the first and second years after stroke. Compared to age- and sex-matched population norms, caregivers scored significantly lower on the mental subscales of HRQL, and differences were greater for women than for men. Caregiver characteristics (older age, less burden, and fewer physical symptoms) were associated with better HRQL (mental summary scale) in the first year, with similar findings in the second year. Moderate stroke survivor physical impairment and caregiver characteristics (younger age and better HRQL) were associated with better QoL in the first year. During the second year poorer caregiver physical and mental health and caring for a stroke survivor with communication difficulties were associated with diminished QoL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Nursing & HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207