MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080749379 · doi:10.1310/crda-pgfw-khel-20e1

The Necessity and Limitations of Evidence-Based Practice in Stroke Rehabilitation

2003· review· en· W2080749379 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey W. Jutai, Robert Teasell

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
FundersCanadian Stroke Network
KeywordsRehabilitationClinical PracticeStroke (engine)Process (computing)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based practice attempts to implement the results of research trials (evidence) and to translate those results into clinical practice, with the presumed goal of improving the effectiveness of clinical care. An empirically validated knowledge base has the potential to substantially increase a clinician's confidence in his or her therapeutic plan. Whether or not research can be a basis for change in practice is a serious ethical consideration. This article argues for the importance of transferring research knowledge on the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation as quickly as possible to clinical practice, while at the same time acknowledging the ethical issues associated with this process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations49
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Stroke RehabilitationSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207