MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084789114 · doi:10.1586/14737175.2013.814940

Pharmacological therapies to enhance motor recovery and walking after stroke: emerging strategies

2013· review· en· W2084789114 on OpenAlexaff
Wieslaw Oczkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPharmacotherapyPsychological interventionWeaknessClinical trialStroke recoveryPhysical therapyRehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke is the most common serious neurological disorder. To date, the focus for research and trials has been on prevention and acute care. Many patients are left with serious neurological impairments and limitations in activity and participation after stroke. Recent preliminary research and trials suggest that the brain is 'plastic' and that the natural history of stroke recovery can be improved by physical therapy and pharmacotherapy. Motor weakness and the ability to walk have been the primary targets for testing interventions that may improve recovery after stroke. Physical therapeutic interventions enhance recovery after stroke; however, the timing, duration and type of intervention require clarification and further trials. Pharmacotherapy, in particular with dopaminergic and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, shows promise in enhancing motor recovery after stroke; however, further large-scale trials are required.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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 score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207