Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy following Organ Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals who receive a solid organ transplant have pre-operative and post-operative impairments in physical function. PURPOSE: This pilot study evaluated the changes in physical function of 23 individuals with an organ transplant who received 2 or more hours of occupational therapy while inpatients in an acute care facility. These individuals also received physiotherapy treatment that was retrospectively quantified. Post-operative function was evaluated at assessment and discharge from occupational therapy with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). RESULTS: Significant improvements in FIM scores (mean change +22) were noted at discharge from occupational therapy and there was a positive correlation between attendances or minutes of occupational therapy and study participants' changes in function. Occupational therapy attendances or minutes were also negatively correlated with study participants' initial functional status, which suggests that individuals with lower function received more occupational therapy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Notwithstanding the benefit of physiotherapy, and the methodological limits of an uncontrolled pre-test/post-test design, this study provides novel, preliminary evidence for the benefit of occupational therapy during the acute care stay of individuals with a solid organ transplant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".