MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743844887 · doi:10.1177/0308022617714165

Novel occupational therapy intervention in the early rehabilitation of patients with brain tumours

2017· article· en· W2743844887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anders Hansen, Mette Boll, Lisbeth Rosenbek Minet, Karen Søgaard, Hanne Kaae Kristensen

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)MedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statement of context The Danish Health Authority recommends that patients with brain tumours should have their rehabilitation needs evaluated prior to hospital discharge. Critical reflection on practice To our knowledge, no specific recommendations for specialised occupational therapy intervention in patients with glioma have been published. We rationalise how occupational therapy practices founded on shared decision-making and common goal-setting are implicated to patients with brain tumours and elaborate on how an occupation-centred approach with occupation-focused and based intervention has the potential to impact a patient’s performance ability and satisfaction in performing occupations established by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. This practice was embedded in a randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of intensive rehabilitation efforts and involving occupational therapy compared with standard care in patients with glioma (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02221986). Implications for practice Occupational therapy makes an important contribution in neurorehabilitation, which may also apply to patients with brain tumours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207