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 OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey W. Jutai, Sanjit K. Bhogal, Norine Foley, Mark Bayley, Robert Teasell, Mark Speechley

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Stroke RehabilitationSame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207