MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105213580 · doi:10.1080/02699050701201813

Cognitive interventions post acquired brain injury

2007· review· en· W2105213580 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Rees, Shawn Marshall, Cheryl Hartridge, D.P. Mackie, Margaret Weiser

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive rehabilitation therapyAcquired brain injuryRehabilitationPsychological interventionCognitionCognitive remediation therapyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTraumatic brain injuryMedicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive rehabilitation represents a substantial portion of rehabilitative efforts put forth in increasing independence following an acquired brain injury. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: This review examined four major areas of cognitive therapy including: attention/concentration, learning and memory, executive functioning, and general cognitive rehabilitation approaches. In total, 64 studies were evaluated throughout the four major areas, which provided the evidence-base for 18 conclusions. The majority of the conclusions were based on moderate and limited evidence, however three strong and one conflicting conclusions were made. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore functional outcome measures and long-term effects of treatment interventions through follow-up.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations123
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207