A Multinational Comparison Of Aphasia Management Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of restructuring of healthcare on the quality, quantity, and nature of aphasia management is largely unknown. The current study is the first to examine access, diagnostic, treatment, and discharge patterns of patients with aphasia in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US private sector (US-Private), and the US Veterans Health Administration in the Department of Veterans Affairs (US-VA). The authors developed a 37-item survey to be completed by clinicians working with aphasic patients. The survey focused on eight areas: access to care, evaluation procedures, group treatment, number and duration of treatment sessions, limitations of the number of sessions, termination of treatment, follow-up practices, and resumption of treatment. 394 surveys were distributed and 175 were returned completed (44% return rate). Respondents represented a range of ages, work experiences, and work settings. There was considerable consistency among respondents from our five healthcare systems. Results suggest that patients may be routinely denied treatment in direct contradiction to the research literature. Just as we carefully monitor the progress of patients receiving our treatment, we are obliged to monitor the effects of managed care on our patients, fellow clinicians, and our profession.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".