Availability, characteristics, and barriers of rehabilitation programs in organ transplant populations across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trojetto T, Elliott RJ, Rashid S, Wong S, Dlugosz K, Helm D, Wickerson L, Brooks D. Availability, characteristics, and barriers of rehabilitation programs in organ transplant populations across Canada. Clin Transplant 2011: 25: E571–E578. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Rehabilitation is receiving increasingly more attention from the medical community in the management of individuals’ pre- and post-organ transplantation. A cross-sectional descriptive survey was administered to all known transplant programs across Canada to explore the availability, characteristics, and barriers of rehabilitation programs pre- and post-heart, lung, kidney, and liver transplantation. Of the 58 programs surveyed, 35 agreed to participate (nine heart, six lung, 13 kidney, seven liver), and six refused for a response rate of 71%. Twelve transplant programs that offered rehabilitation were identified (six heart, five lung, one liver). All rehabilitation programs identified included aerobic exercises, strength training, and education and involved a multidisciplinary team. The Six Minute Walk Test and the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 questionnaire were the most commonly used outcome measures. In kidney and liver transplant programs, over 50% of respondents from these programs cited lack of funding, shortage of health care personnel, and a low volume of patients in a centralized region as barriers to providing rehabilitation programs. Rehabilitation can play an integral role in pre- and post-transplantation management, and barriers to access and provision of rehabilitation for organ transplant populations should be examined further.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".