MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037217303 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.4.117

Review: therapy based rehabilitation services reduce the risk of deterioration in patients who have had a stroke

2004· letter· en· W2037217303 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeb of scienceRehabilitationPhysical therapyStroke (engine)PediatricsInternal medicineMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legg L, Langhorne P; Outpatient Service Trialists. Rehabilitation therapy services for stroke patients living at home: systematic review of randomised trials. Lancet 2004;363:352–6.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In community dwelling patients who have had a stroke, do therapy based rehabilitation services offered ⩽1 year after stroke onset or discharge from hospital reduce deterioration in ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL)? Outpatient Service Trialists. Therapy-based rehabilitation services for stroke patients at home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(1):CD002925. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, CINAHL, PsycLIT, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, AMED, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index, bibliographies of relevant articles, and researchers in the field. Trial searching was completed in November 2001. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outpatient therapy based rehabilitation services (ie, interventions provided by qualified physiotherapists, occupational therapists, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DLegg%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D363%26rft.issue%253D9406%26rft.spage%253D352%26rft.epage%253D356%26rft.atitle%253DRehabilitation%2Btherapy%2Bservices%2Bfor%2Bstroke%2Bpatients%2Bliving%2Bat%2Bhome%253A%2Bsystematic%2Breview%2Bof%2Brandomised%2Btrials.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252804%252915434-2%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15070563%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15434-2&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15070563&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F4%2F117.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000188590900008&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207