Incentives for postmortem organ donation: ethical and cultural considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Huntington9s disease (HD) is an untreatable hereditary neurodegenerative disease manifesting various types of motor disorders including stability and gait disturbances, together with cognitive and behavioural impairments. The symptomatic therapy is limited and temporary. Rehabilitation (Rhb) is considered to be beneficial in postural and gait instability treatment and prevention of falls. However, there is very limited evidence-based information on the Rhb therapy effects and no specific Rhb management. <h3>Aims</h3> To evaluate long-term effects of targeted rehabilitation on postural and gait stability in the early and middle stages of HD. <h3>Methods</h3> 8 genetically verified HD patients in the early and middle stages, without severe cognitive deficit (Mini Mental State Examination >20) and without depression (Beck Depression Inventory 0–9) were examined at the baseline using UHDRS (Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale), gait stability examination (Dynamic Gait Index-DGI), posturography (Limits of Stability; LOS-static, dynamic), Falls Efficacy Scale-FES (fall risk) and Clinical Global Impression-CGI (subjective effect of treatment evaluation) questionnaires. Then they underwent a 3-week inpatient rehabilitation program including: A. individual physiotherapy focused on gait, stability and coordination, twice a day 30 min., B. 60 min of condition training , C. 30 min of occupational therapy. The follow-up testing with the same battery was realised immediately, 1 month and 3 months after completion of the rehabilitation programme. <h3>Results</h3> There was a statistically significant improvement in DGI (p < 0.001) in all intervals compared to the baseline and in LOS-static (p = 0.003) in all intervals compared to the baseline. No improvement was found in UHDRS and questionnaires (FES, CGI). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Specific rehabilitation methods improve the postural and gait stability in patients with HD. The effect persists at least for 3 months. With the support of: GAUK 1888214, IGA NT 11190–6/2010 and PRVOUK P26/LF1/.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".