Integrated care pathway based rehabilitation for acute stroke did not reduce length of hospital stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulch D, Perez I, Melbourn A, Kalra L. Randomized controlled trial of integrated (managed) care pathway for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke2000 Aug; 31 : 1929 –34 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Is integrated care pathway (ICP) based management more effective than conventional multidisciplinary care in reducing length of hospital stay in patients with acute stroke who require specialist rehabilitation? Randomised (allocation concealed), unblinded, controlled trial with follow up to 26 weeks. A stroke rehabilitation unit in a hospital in London, UK. 152 patients (mean age 75 y, 51% men) who had acute stroke within the previous 2 weeks; and had persistent motor, sensory, vision, speech, perceptual, or cognitive impairment that limited personal activities of daily living (ADL) and required inpatient rehabilitation. Exclusion criterion was severe premorbid disability. Follow up was complete, although some measures had incomplete data (≤18% of records). 76 patients were allocated to rehabilitation managed by an ICP (organised, goal defined, and time managed care plan). The ICP was developed by a multidisciplinary stroke team on … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DStroke%26rft.stitle%253DStroke%26rft.aulast%253DSulch%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%26rft.volume%253D31%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D1929%26rft.epage%253D1934%26rft.atitle%253DRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%2Bof%2BIntegrated%2B%2528Managed%2529%2BCare%2BPathway%2Bfor%2BStroke%2BRehabilitation%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252F01.STR.31.8.1929%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10926959%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=strokeaha&resid=31/8/1929&atom=%2Febnurs%2F4%2F2%2F53.atom
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".