The efficacy of acquired brain injury rehabilitation
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.834
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to investigate the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions in acquired brain injury (ABI) rehabilitation to provide guidance for clinical practice based on the best available evidence. METHODS AND MAIN OUTCOMES: A systematic review of the literature from 1980-2005 was conducted focusing on rehabilitation interventions for ABI. The efficacy of a given intervention was classified as strong (supported by at least two randomized controlled trials (RCTs)), moderate (supported by a single RCT), or limited (supported by other types of studies in the absence of RCTs). RESULTS: The majority of interventions were only supported by limited evidence. However, there is moderate evidence that inpatient rehabilitation results in successful return to work and return to duty for the majority of military service members, increasing the intensity of rehabilitation reduces length of stay and improves short-term functional outcomes, and that direct patient involvement in neurorehabilitation goal setting results in significant improvements in reaching and maintaining those goals. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for studies of improved methodological quality into ABI rehabilitation.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Brain Injury
- Topic
- Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- Western UniversityUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- RehabilitationAcquired brain injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTraumatic brain injuryMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatry
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes