Participation after stroke compared to normal aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the reduction in participation of people who have had a stroke compared with healthy people with normal aging. DESIGN: Participation of people who had a stroke was compared with participation of healthy subjects. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: Forty-six people who had a stroke for 2-4 years and 46 healthy participants matched on age, sex and living environment. MEASUREMENTS: Participation was estimated with the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H). The LIFE-H (short version 2.1) is composed of 58 daily activities and social roles associated to the 12 categories of the Disability Creation Process model. The LIFE-H gives separate scores for each category, for 2 main subsections "Daily activities" and "Social roles" and a total score. RESULTS: Scores of healthy subjects did not reach the maximum value (9/9) of the LIFE-H, their mean scores varying from 6.3 to 8.6, according to the categories. These scores are higher than of the participants with stroke for all categories (scores varying from 3.9 to 6.5; p-values from 0.002 to <0.001), except the interpersonal relationships category (score of 7.8 vs 8.0) where no difference was found (p=0.49). The disruption in participation after stroke varies according to the categories of the LIFE-H, but is more important in the daily activities categories. CONCLUSION: The comparison of the scores obtained by the 2 groups suggests that a part of the reduction in participation in daily activities and social roles after stroke is attributable to normal aging and not entirely to the stroke itself. It helps to focus interventions on activities and roles disruption domains that are really attributable to stroke.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".