The YOU CALL–WE CALL Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparison of a multimodal intervention WE CALL (study initiated phone support/information provision) versus a passive intervention YOU CALL (participant can contact a resource person) in individuals with first mild stroke. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Primary outcome includes unplanned use of health services (participant diaries) for adverse events and quality of life (Euroquol-5D, Quality of Life Index). Secondary outcomes include planned use of health services (diaries), mood (Beck Depression Inventory II), and participation (Assessment of Life Habits [LIFE-H]). Blind assessments were done at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A mixed model approach for statistical analysis on an intention-to-treat basis was used where the group factor was intervention type and occasion factor time, with a significance level of 0.01. We enrolled 186 patients (WE=92; YOU=94) with a mean age of 62.5 ± 12.5 years, and 42.5% were women. No significant differences were seen between groups at 6 months for any outcomes with both groups improving from baseline on all measures (effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 0.7). The only significant change for both groups from 6 months to 1 year (n=139) was in the social domains of the LIFE-H (increment in score, 0.4/9 ± 1.3 [95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.7]; effect size, 0.3). Qualitatively, the WE CALL intervention was perceived as reassuring, increased insight, and problem solving while decreasing anxiety. Only 6 of 94 (6.4%) YOU CALL participants availed themselves of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2 groups improved equally over time, WE CALL intervention was perceived as helpful, whereas YOU CALL intervention was not used. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN95662526.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".