Quality of Life During and After Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Very limited longitudinal data are available that assess the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of stroke survivors after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. The purpose of this research was to assess changes in HRQOL during inpatient rehabilitation and again 6 months after discharge. METHODS: This was a prospective study of all eligible patients admitted to an inpatient stroke rehabilitation hospital over a 3-year period. HRQOL was assessed by means of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36). Dependent t tests were used to compare the scores at admission and discharge and at discharge and 6 months. Changes in HRQOL were calculated for the period of admission to discharge and of discharge to the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 85 patients. During rehabilitation, there were improvements in all 8 domains of the SF-36, with 5 attaining statistical significance. After discharge, 3 domains continued to improve, with 1 attaining statistical significance. However, there were marked and statistically significant declines in the other 5 domains of the SF-36. Feedback was obtained from a subset of the patients as to the reasons for these declines. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial gains in HRQOL during inpatient stroke rehabilitation may be followed by equally substantial declines in the 6 months after discharge. There is a need for longitudinal research into the HRQOL of stroke survivors and their families, as well as a need to ensure that adequate community services and support are available.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it