Outcomes during and after inpatient rehabilitation: Comparison between adults and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare changes on biopsychosocial variables between adults (< 65 years) and older adults (> or = 65 years) during and after an inpatient rehabilitation program. DESIGN: Comparative study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 165 people 18 years and over admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit. METHODS: The participants were evaluated 3 times: at admission and discharge and 3 months later. Outcome measures were: Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF), Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, Trail Making Test, Motor-Free Visual Perceptual Test, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go (TUG), Jamar dynamometer, and General Well-being Schedule (GWBS). RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly between admission and discharge on the SMAF, BBS, TUG, VAS, Jamar dynamometer and GWBS. Although scores on many of the outcome measures differed at admission, the 2 groups improved similarly during rehabilitation. After 3 months, stability or a slight improvement was observed for both groups; however, younger participants improved more on mobility, balance, walking and grip strength. CONCLUSION: Although older participants had more disabilities at admission, they benefited as much as younger people from an intensive rehabilitation program with a comparable length of stay. However, younger participants continued to improve 3 months later.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".