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
The aim of this study was to assess the specific influence of age on basal functional status and rehabilitation results. We conducted a case-comparison study on 150 stroke inpatients. They were enrolled in homogeneous subgroups, matched for severity of stroke (measured by Canadian Neurological Scale - CNS) and onset admission interval (within 3 days) and divided into five subgroups according to age: <or=50; 51-64; 65-74; 75-84; and >or=85 years. Even when severity of stroke was the same, increasing age was associated with greater disability in activities of daily living (ADL) and mobility, minor results of rehabilitation treatment and shorter length of stay. Patients >or=85 years were nearly ten times as likely to show a low response in ADL (OR = 9.28, 95% CI = 2.89-29.76) and nearly six times in mobility (OR = 6.13, 95% CI = 2.18-17.25) than younger patients. However, rehabilitation treatment was efficacious also in patients >or=85 years, with effectiveness of treatment 27.96% on ADL and 18.64% on mobility. On one hand our results confirm the unfavorable influence of age on functional outcome and on the other that inpatient rehabilitation is substantially effective also for very old patients, although less than for younger ones.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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