The Effect of Visuospatial Neglect on Functional Outcome and Discharge Destination: An Exploratory Study
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".