Inpatient rehabilitation outcomes in solid organ transplantation: Results of a unique partnership between the rehabilitation hospital and the multi-organ transplant unit in an acute hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients following inpatient rehabilitation, as a result of a unique partnership between the rehabilitation hospital and the multi-organ transplant program in an acute hospital. Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting: Community rehabilitation hospital affiliated with a university. Participants: A cohort of 173 organ transplant patients admitted consecutively over a four-year period (2004-2008) was compared to a cohort of all rehabilitation patients (n = 9762) admitted to the same inpatient rehab facility during the same period. Interventions: Inpatient rehab program to all participants. Main Outcome Measures: Length of hospital stay, Functional Independence Measure (FIMTM) change (admission-discharge), and rate of discharges to home. Results: Outcomes were measured using components of the FIMTM instrument, admission and discharge data. Chi-square and independent two-sample t-tests were used for statistical analysis. Compared to a general rehabilitation inpatient population, transplant rehabilitation inpatients had: more immediate (TM change (8.9 vs. 20.9, p TM efficiency (1.1 vs. 1.4, p < 0.001); and a higher rate of discharges to home in patients not readmitted to acute care (98.5% vs. 94.5% p < 0.001). Conclusion: Outcomes of rehabilitation in solid organ transplant patients are comparable but not identical to those in other patient groups. Inpatient rehabilitation for transplant patients is therefore fully justifiable and necessary. The ten times higher rate of transplant patient readmission to acute hospital must be communicated, facilitated, accepted and managed within a partnership strategy.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".