Toward Benchmarks for Stroke Rehabilitation in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Canadian benchmarking data do not exist for stroke rehabilitation services. This study used the FIM-function-related group (FIM-FRG) classification system to group patients and to describe the outcomes within each group. The intent was to begin to develop benchmarks for persons recovering from stroke in Canadian rehabilitation facilities. DESIGN: 561 patients were stratified into the nine categories of the FIM-FRG system. Length of stay (LOS), total FIM gain, total FIM at discharge, and discharge location were described for each category. RESULTS: Mean waiting time to rehabilitation admission was 29.7 days. Mean LOS was 49.2 days. Mean admission and discharge total FIM ratings were 78.1 and 103.1, respectively. FIM gain ranged from 8 to 37. Seventeen percent of patients were discharged to nursing homes, with rates ranging from a low of 0% (FRG 8 and 9) to a high of 60% (FRG 2). CONCLUSIONS: For the nine FIM-FRG groups, LOS was considerably longer in the Canadian facility than in the United States, and total FIM score at discharge was higher in Canada. This is likely related to differences in the healthcare systems of the two countries and confirms the need to develop benchmarks based on Canadian data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".