MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2438689636 · doi:10.1177/1747493016654483

The potential power of robotics for upper extremity stroke rehabilitation

2016· article· en· W2438689636 on OpenAlexaff
Sean P. Dukelow

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoboticsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Artificial intelligenceRehabilitation roboticsRobotPhysical therapyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two decades of research on robots and upper extremity rehabilitation has resulted in recommendations from systematic reviews and guidelines on their use in stroke. Robotics are often cited for their ability to encourage mass practice as a means to enhance recovery of movement. Yet, stroke recovery is a complex process occurring across many aspects of neurologic function beyond movement. As newer devices are developed and enhanced assessments are integrated into treatment protocols, the potential of robotics to advance rehabilitation will continue to grow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207