MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132604341 · doi:10.1310/etdp-6dr4-d617-vmvf

The Role of Timing and Intensity of Rehabilitation Therapies

2005· review· en· W2132604341 on OpenAlex
Robert Teasell, Jamie Bitensky, Katherine Salter, Nestor A. Bayona

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalSt Joseph's Health Care
FundersCanadian Stroke NetworkHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Chronic strokeMedicinePhysical therapyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In both animal and clinical studies, motor rehabilitation and training increase cortical representation and improve recovery, whereas lack of training decreases cortical representation for particular motor functions. In animals, delays in providing rehabilitation reduce the impact of therapy with a worsening in motor outcomes and a corresponding reduction in cortical reorganization. In clinical studies, there is an association between earlier admission to rehabilitation and better outcomes that correlates with animal work both in terms of functional gains from chronic stroke deficits and cortical reorganization. There is a likely relationship between therapy intensity and improvements in functional outcomes. Clinically, greater intensity of stroke rehabilitation has been associated with improved outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · 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