Cognitive and Functional Outcomes following Inpatient Rehabilitation in Patients with Acquired Brain Injury: A Prospective Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: To study the effects of cognitive retraining and inpatient rehabilitation to study the effects of cognitive retraining and inpatient rehabilitation in patients with acquired brain injury (ABI). Design and Setting: This was a prospective follow-up study in a neurological rehabilitation department of quaternary research hospital. Patients and Methods: Thirty patients with ABI, mean age 36.43 years (standard deviation [SD] 12.6, range 18–60), mean duration of illness 77.87 days (SD 91.78, range 21–300 days) with cognitive, physical, and motor-sensory deficits underwent inpatient rehabilitation for minimum of 14 sessions over a period of 3 weeks. Nineteen patients (63%) reported in the follow-up of minimum 3 months after discharge. Type of ABI, cognitive status (using Montreal Cognitive assessment scale [MoCA] and cognitive Functional Independence Measure [Cog FIM]®), and functional status (motor FIM®) were noted at admission, discharge, and follow-up and scores were compared. Results: Patients received inpatient rehabilitation addressing cognitive and functional impairments. Baseline MoCA, motor FIM, and Cog FIM scores were 15.27 (SD = 7.2, range 3–30), 31.57 (SD = 15.6, range 12–63), and 23.47 (SD = 9.7, range 5–35), respectively. All the parameters improved significantly at the time of discharge (MoCA = 19.6 ± 7.4 range 3–30, motor FIM® = 61.33 ± 18.7 range 12–89, Cog FIM® =27.23 – 8.10 range 9–35). Patients were discharged with home-based programs. Nineteen patients reported in follow-up and observed to have maintained cognition on MoCA (18.8 ± 6.8 range 6–27), significantly improved (P < 0.01) on Cog FIM® (28.0 ± 7.7 range 14–35) and motor FIM® =72.89 ± 16.2 range 40–96) as compare to discharge scores. Conclusions: Cognitive and functional outcomes improve significantly with dedicated and specialized inpatient rehabilitation in ABI patients, which is sustainable over a period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.042 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".