The Effect of Visuospatial Neglect on Functional Outcome and Discharge Destination: An Exploratory Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of visuospatial neglect on functional outcome and discharge destination in individuals with right brain damage. Methods: Sixteen subjects agreed to participate in the study and 6 of these subjects demonstrated visuospatial neglect. During two different data collection periods, participants were evaluated with the Rivermead Behavioral Inattention Test, the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Berg Balance Scale, and the Chedoke-McMaster Impairment Inventory. Results: Admission and discharge FIM scores were significantly lower for subjects with visuospatial neglect. The discharge destination for the group with visuospatial neglect demonstrated a trend toward supported living (i.e., long-term care). The groups did not differ significantly in onset to rehabilitation admission interval or length of rehabilitation stay. Conclusions: The presence of visuospatial neglect may predict the need for greater amounts of caregiver assistance at discharge.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it