A systematic review of the rehabilitation of moderate to severe acquired brain injuries
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".