MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074931828 · doi:10.1080/02699050701201631

Community reintegration following acquired brain injury

2007· review· en· W2074931828 on OpenAlexafffund
Pat McCabe, Corbin Lippert, Margaret Weiser, Maureen Hilditch, Cheryl Hartridge, James Villamere

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Care
FundersOntario Neurotrauma Foundation
KeywordsAcquired brain injuryTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineRehabilitationPsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interventions and strategies used to enable transition from acute care or post-acute rehabilitation to the community following brain injury. METHODS AND MAIN OUTCOMES: A systematic review of the literature from 1980-2005 was conducted focusing on ABI rehabilitation. Five major aspects of community reintegration, including: independence and social integration, caregiver burden, satisfaction with quality of life, productivity and return to driving were considered. RESULTS: With the exception of one, the majority of interventions are supported by only limited evidence, denoting an absence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the literature. Of 38 studies evaluated for this review, only one RCT was found. That RCT provided moderate evidence that behavioural management, coupled with caregiver education, did not help to improve caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: Further research, using an interventional approach, is required to advance the evidence base of reintegration into the community following brain injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207