뇌졸중 재활치료를 위한 한국형 표준 진료 지침
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” is the 3rd edition of clinical practice guideline (CPG) for stroke rehabilitation in Korea, which updates the 2nd edition published in 2014. Forty-two specialists in stroke rehabilitation from 21 universities and 4 rehabilitation hospitals and 4 consultants participated in this update. The purpose of this CPG is to provide optimum practical guidelines for stroke rehabilitation teams to make a decision when they manage stroke patients and ultimately, to help stroke patients obtain maximal functional recovery and return to the society. The recent two CPGs from Canada (2015) and USA (2016) and articles that were published following the 2nd edition were used to develop this 3rd edition of CPG for stroke rehabilitation in Korea. The chosen articles' level of evidence and grade of recommendation were decided by the criteria of Scotland (2010) and the formal consensus was derived by the nominal group technique. The levels of evidence range from 1++ to 4 and the grades of recommendation range from A to D. Good Practice Point was recommended as best practice based on the clinical experience of the guideline developmental group. The draft of the developed CPG was reviewed by the experts group in the public hearings and then revised. “Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” consists of ‘Chapter 1; Introduction of Stroke Rehabilitation’, ‘Chapter 2; Rehabilitation for Stroke Syndrome, ‘Chapter 3; Rehabilitation for Returning to the Society’, and ‘Chapter 4; Advanced Technique for Stroke Rehabilitation’. “Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” will provide direction and standardization for acute, subacute and chronic stroke rehabilitation in Korea.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it