MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092075272 · doi:10.1310/07be-5e1n-735j-1c6u

Treatment of Visual Perceptual Disorders Post Stroke

2003· review· en· W2092075272 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSt Joseph's Health CareParkwood InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectRehabilitationPerceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)PsychologyUnilateral neglectPerceptual DisordersVisual perceptionMedicinePsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual perceptual disorders are a common clinical consequence of stroke. They include unilateral neglect, which has a major impact on rehabilitation outcome. The nature of the behavioral deficits associated with neglect has suggested that behavioral modification strategies may improve performance. This article presents a critical review and synthesis of published research evidence for the effectiveness of treatments for visual perceptual disorders after stroke. The strongest evidence for rehabilitation effectiveness was for the following: (a) specific treatment for perceptual disorders; and (b) specific training for neglect (including visual scanning). Findings also suggest that more research is needed into how the assessment of specific features of visual perceptual disorders might lead to improved methods for rehabilitation, including the use of assistive devices for mobility and activities of daily living.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.307 · 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