A Synthesis of Peer-Reviewed Literature on Team-Coordinated and Delivered Early Supported Discharge After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aimed to summarize data from peer-reviewed studies of team-coordinated and delivered early supported discharge (ESD) for postacute, poststroke rehabilitation. A systematic review was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL for appropriate studies. Information on program details and patient cohorts was synthesized. All programs sought patients with mild-to-moderate functional impairment and minimal cognitive impairment (often based on Barthel Index and Mini-Mental State Examination scores, respectively). All also included at least one subjective admission criterion related to rehabilitation suitability or the suitability of the home environment. Based on the identified studies, ESD programs can assume that 15% of patients screened for ESD will be eligible and care should be provided for 4 to 5 weeks postdischarge. Although the benefits of team-coordinated and delivered ESD poststroke have been well-documented, this review may be helpful for clinicians, administrators, and policy makers looking to establish or refine an ESD program for stroke.
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 | 0.011 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".