Physiatrist referral preferences for postacute stroke rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was intended to determine if there is variation among physiatrists in referral preferences for postacute rehabilitation for stroke patients based on physician demographic characteristics or geography.A cross-sectional survey study was developed with 5 fictional case vignettes that included information about medical, social, and functional domains. Eighty-six physiatrist residents, fellows, and attendings were asked to select the most appropriate postacute rehabilitation setting and also to rank, by importance, 15 factors influencing the referral decision. Chi-square bivariate analysis was used to analyze the data.Eighty-six surveys were collected over a 3-day period. Bivariate analysis (using chi-square) showed no statistically significant relationship between any of the demographic variables and poststroke rehabilitation preference for any of the cases. The prognosis for functional outcome and quality of postacute facility had the highest mean influence ratings (8.63 and 8.31, respectively), whereas location of postacute facility and insurance had the lowest mean influence ratings (5.74 and 5.76, respectively).Physiatrists' referral preferences did not vary with any identified practitioner variables or geographic region; referral preferences only varied significantly by case.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".