MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151100926 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.107.501064

Optimizing Stroke Systems of Care by Enhancing Transitions Across Care Environments

2008· review· en· W2151100926 on OpenAlexaff
Jill I. Cameron, Chris Tsoi, Amanda Marsella

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Intensive care medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke affects many aspects of the lives of stroke survivors and their family caregivers. Supporting long-term recovery and rehabilitation are necessary to help stroke survivors adapt to living with the effects of stroke and to help family members adapt to the caregiving role. During recovery and rehabilitation, many elements of the health care continuum are utilized, including emergency response, acute care, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, and community and long-term care. With the advent of thrombolytic therapy and the benefits of stroke units, stroke survival and outcomes are improving. As a result, the current emphasis of stroke system improvement is to implement stroke units throughout the developed world. To enhance the patient centeredness of stroke care delivery, an important next phase of stroke system improvement will center on the experiences of stroke survivors and their family caregivers as they move through diverse care environments. The objective of this article was to conduct a scoping review of the literature on stroke transitions to identify the current areas of research emphasis. This article highlights stroke survivors' and family caregivers' experiences with transitions across care environment and some potential strategies to improve those transitions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations121
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207