MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144089267 · doi:10.1080/096382800296917

The scope for rehabilitation in severely disabled stroke patients

2000· review· en· W2144089267 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. Finn, Frances Horgan

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Scope (computer science)Disabled peoplePsychologyPhysical therapyMedicineComputer scienceCerebral palsyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review raises several important issues for physiotherapists working in stroke rehabilitation. It examines the demise of patients who are severely disabled by strokeand highlightscriticalareas regarding therecovery process of this patient group ‐ response to rehabilitation and the cost eŒectiveness of rehabilitation.Stroke is a devastating trauma which has a major impact on the family and carer. Of acute stroke survivors 10% are not disabled, 40% have mild disability, 40% moderate} severe disability with 10% requiring long term care. Mortality in the ® rst month has been reported to be as high as 20% or higher in some studies. Seventy percent of patients survive 1± 3 years following stroke with 30% surviving 11 years or more.# Stroke patients may be too ill to actively participate in any form of rehabilitation, such as those cases with a lowered level of consciousness as identi® ed by the Glasgow coma scale and in the presence of other adverse prognostic factors which can aŒect outcome. Age is a factor to be considered in the case of severe stroke especially if accompanied by comorbidity which has been identi® ed by some authors

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.329
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207