“Good Outcome” Isn’t Good Enough
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional outcome after stroke is often only evaluated using the modified Rankin Scale, which primarily assesses activities of daily living. Stroke patients may experience difficulties with social reintegration and mental functions, feel isolated, and experience poor quality of life, even after physical recovery is complete. Functional assessments based solely on activity limitations may not be able to capture the full range of problems experienced by stroke survivors. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted 2 to 3 years poststroke to assess outcome on multiple levels of functioning as stated in the WHO International Classification of Functioning: body function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Patient Health Questionnaire-2), activity (modified Rankin Scale), and participation (Reintegration to Normal Living Index). RESULTS: Ninety-six (68%) patients had a favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale <2). Of these, 79, 91, and 93 patients completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Reintegration to Normal Living Index, and Patient Health Questionnaire-2, respectively. Forty-three (54%) patients were cognitively impaired, 47 (52%) had restrictions in reintegration, and 30 (32%) endorsed symptoms of depression. There was no difference in Montreal Cognitive Assessment or Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores between those who had activity limitations and those who had not. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of stroke patients with excellent functional recovery measured by the modified Rankin Scale continue to have cognitive impairment and participation restrictions, and one third of patients continue to have depression 2 to 3 years later. Current definitions of good functional outcome used in the majority of stroke acute trials focus on activity limitations, but greater attention to multiple levels of recovery is required.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".