Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Cognitive Strategy Use to Improve Goal Performance After Stroke
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
OBJECTIVE: The authors compared changes in client performance on three goals poststroke after the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) intervention or standard occupational therapy (SOT) to determine the magnitude and direction of change. METHOD: Eight people living in the community following a stroke were randomly assigned to receive CO-OP (n = 4) or SOT (n = 4). CO-OP is a 10-session, cognitive-oriented approach to improving performance that uses client-driven cognitive strategies. SOT was therapist driven and combined task-specific and component-based training. Goal performance was measured by the therapist-rated Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS) and the participant-rated Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: Using Mann-Whitney U test, we found that CO-OP participants showed significantly greater improvement in performance (PQRS, p = .02; COPM Performance, p = .02) compared with SOT but no improvement in satisfaction (COPM Satisfaction, p = .38). CONCLUSION: The CO-OP group demonstrated larger performance improvements than the SOT group. Because of the promising results, an investigation using a larger sample is warranted.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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