Quality of the Stroke Rehabilitation Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Stroke Rehabilitation Evidence-Based Review revealed a wide range of quality scores across primary studies. The aim of this section is to determine what differences there are across studies and to provide a detailed examination of methodological issues in the stroke rehabilitation literature. Methodology of each article was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) quality scale. Mean PEDro scores and percentage of studies meeting individual PEDro criteria were determined for all studies, for therapy-based studies only, and for drug-based studies only. It was noted that the stroke rehabilitation literature lacked rigor in the area of concealed allocation, blinding of the assessor, and intention-to-treat analysis. Investigation of the methodological quality of stroke rehabilitation literature emphasizes the need for improved treatment protocols, taking into account previous deficits, during research.
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 | 0.337 | 0.607 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".