MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563676866 · doi:10.13096/rfre.v2n2.26

Les impacts fonctionnels de l’adaptation prismatique auprès d’une population atteinte de négligence spatiale unilatérale : une revue systématique

2016· article· fr· W2563676866 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Brassard, Julien Voisin

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. La négligence spatiale unilatérale (NSU) constitue l’un des plus importants prédicteurs du devenir fonctionnel des personnes atteintes d’un accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC). Parmi les approches proposées pour réduire cet important symptôme, l’adaptation prismatique est applicable peu importe le niveau de conscience de la personne face à son déficit et permet d’intervenir sur les déficits moteurs intentionnels. Objectifs. Le présent article documenter les conséquences de ce traitement novateur sur le fonctionnement de sujets souffrant de NSU. Méthode. Pour ce faire une revue de littérature scientifique a été réalisée via CINAHL et PubMed. Au total, la recherche a mené à l'analyse de 10 articles scientifiques portant sur l'impact fonctionnel de l'adaptation prismatique chez des sujets présentant une NSU causée par une lésion cérébrale droite. Résultats. Bien que le niveau de preuve demeure modéré, principalement en raison du petit nombre d'études existantes et de leur hétérogénéité, les résultats suggèrent que l'adaptation prismatique pourrait être une avenue intéressante pour le traitement de l'héminégligence.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207