MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2621351988 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2017.145

P.061 An outcome study of ischemic stroke patients admitted to a rehabilitation unit

2017· article· en· W2621351988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shiona K Glass-Kaastra, A Saab, G. Bryan Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Atrial fibrillationDiabetes mellitusRehabilitationInternal medicineMultivariate analysisUnivariate analysisHeart failurePhysical therapyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Earlier studies suggest that age and stroke severity are the main determinants in stroke patient disposition after rehabilitation. We examined these and other variables to determine those that correlated with returning home vs. long-term care (LTC). Methods: Chart review of ischemic stroke patients with initial alpha-FIM scores between 40 and 80 admitted to our Rehabilitation Unit from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: There were 162 suitable patients. 130 went home and 32 went to LTC. The multivariable analysis showed the following variables favored LTC disposition: age (1.2x increased risk with increased age, P<0.01), residence (17.5x increased risk if not starting at home, P<0.01), right vs. left hemisphere (5.4x greater risk with right hemisphere, p=0.01), bowel continence (10.6x greater risk if not continent, p<0.01), and caregiver (0.05x decreased risk if a caregiver is present, p<0.01). No differences were found for sex, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, previous stroke, congestive heart failure, COPD, obesity, hemianopsia or financial status. Conclusions: Numerous variables probably affect patient disposition after rehabilitation for acute ischemic stroke.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→