A systematic review of the rehabilitation of moderate to severe acquired brain injuries
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: To conduct a systematic review of the rehabilitation literature of moderate to severe acquired brain injuries (ABI) from traumatic and non-traumatic causes. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted for studies looking at interventions in ABI rehabilitation. The methodological quality of each study was determined using the Downs and Black scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs as well as the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale for RCTs only. RESULTS: Almost 14 000 references were screened from which 1312 abstracts were selected. A total of 303 articles were chosen for careful review of which 275 were found to be interventional studies but only 76 of these interventional studies were RCTs. From this, 5 levels of evidence were determined with 177 conclusions drawn; however of the 177 conclusions only 7 were supported by two or more RCTs and 41 were supported by one RCT. CONCLUSION: Only 28% of the interventional studies were RCTs. Over half of the 275 interventional studies were single group interventions, pointing to the 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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