MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Status and Health-Related Quality of Life During Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation

2006· article· en· W2077035072 on OpenAlexaff
Sharen Madden, Wilma M. Hopman, Stephen D. Bagg, Jane Verner, Chris J. O Callaghan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)RehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMEDLINEGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during inpatient stroke rehabilitation to examine the associations between changes in the two measures. DESIGN: Two independently collected databases were combined for a retrospective analysis. One contained the objectively assessed FIM score; the other contained the subjectively assessed Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36). Admission and discharge scores were compared using paired-samples t tests. Associations between the FIM outcomes and the SF-36 outcomes were assessed by means of Pearson's product-moment correlations. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen patients were represented in both databases. Mean age was 71.4 yrs; 59 (51.1%) were female. All FIM scores, four of eight SF-36 domains, and one summary component score showed statistically significant improvement during the course of rehabilitation. Changes in SF-36 were not strongly associated with changes in FIM score, with only 6 of 90 correlations attaining statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Functional status and HRQOL improved considerably over the course of rehabilitation. However, there was poor association between the two outcomes. Both instruments offer insights into outcomes of inpatient rehabilitation, but they are complementary rather than overlapping.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207