IMPACT OF EARLY VS DELAYED ADMISSION TO REHABILITATION ON FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES IN PERSONS WITH STROKE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Delayed admission to rehabilitation may result in poorer outcomes by reducing exposure to therapeutic interventions at a time when the brain is primed for neurological recovery. The present study examined the effects of early vs delayed admission on functional outcome and length of stay in patients admitted to a rehabilitation unit for first-ever unilateral stroke. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Differences in length of rehabilitation stay and functional outcome variables among 435 patients, grouped by interval from stroke event to rehabilitation admission (=30 days vs 31-150 days and 5 additional subgroups) were examined using a multivariate technique. RESULTS: Admission and discharge FIM scores, FIM change and FIM efficiency were significantly higher among early admission patients (p<0.01), while length of stay was significantly longer among delayed admission patients (p<0.01). A significant association was identified between age and admission (p<0.01) and discharge FIM (p<0.01) scores as well as FIM change scores (p=0.017). Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in FIM scores, FIM change and length of stay between groups of patients admitted 0-15 and 16-30 days (p<0.01) and between patients admitted 16-30 days and 31-60 days post-stroke (p<0.01). No significant differences were noted between patients admitted from 31-60 and 61-90 or 61-90 and 91-150 days. CONCLUSION: Patients admitted to stroke rehabilitation within 30 days of first-ever, unilateral stroke experienced greater functional gains and shorter lengths of stay than those whose admission to rehabilitation was delayed beyond 30 days.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".