MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028416381 · doi:10.1159/000375397

Post Stroke Pain: Identification, Assessment, and Therapy

2015· review· en· W2028416381 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca A. Harrison, Thalia S. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common complication after stroke and is associated with the presence of depression, cognitive dysfunction, and impaired quality of life. It remains underdiagnosed and undertreated, despite evidence that effective treatment of pain may improve function and quality of life. SUMMARY: We provide an overview of the means for clinical assessment and risk factors for the development of post-stroke pain, then review the newest available literature regarding the commonest post-stroke pain syndromes, including central post-stroke pain, complex regional pain syndrome, musculoskeletal pain including shoulder subluxation, spasticity-related pain, and post-stroke headache, as well as the available epidemiology and current treatment options. Key Messages: In the best interests of optimizing quality of life and function after stroke, clinicians should be aware of pain as a common complication after stroke, identify those patients at highest risk, directly inquire as to the presence and characteristics of pain, and should be aware of the options for treatment for the various pain syndromes.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations420
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebrovascular DiseasesSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207