Recovery of personal neglect.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extrapersonal unilateral spatial neglect after stroke is associated to a poor rehabilitation outcome. Minor attention has been paid to the recovery of personal neglect, to its relationship with the recovery of extrapersonal neglect and of independency in activities of daily living. AIM: The present study aims at evaluating whether there is an association between recovery of extrapersonal and personal neglect. The secondary aim was to investigate if personal neglect may affect the effectiveness of neurorehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Neurorehabilitation Hospital in Rome, Italy, inpatients. POPULATION: A sample of 49 patients with unilateral spatial neglect resulting from right ischemic cerebral infarction was enrolled in this study, divided into three subgroups according to the presence and the degree of personal neglect, and evaluated pre and postneurorehabilitation. METHODS: Personal neglect was evaluated using Zoccolotti and Judica's Scale, extrapersonal neglect using Letter Cancellation Test, Barrage Test, Sentence Reading Test and Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test. Barthel Index (BI), Rivermead Mobility Index, and Canadian Neurological Scale were also administered. RESULTS: Results showed the following: 1) recovery of personal neglect was not significantly correlated with that of extrapersonal neglect, despite both the disorders were ameliorated after a "non-specific" rehabilitation treatment; 2) personal neglect per se was not an additional negative prognostic factor in the rehabilitation findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that the recoveries of the two types of neglect are independent from each other, and that the presence of personal neglect does not imply significant additional problems to the functional outcomes. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Our study highlighted the need of novel tools to assess the presence and to improve the recovery of personal neglect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".