The practice and predictors of early mobilization of patients post-acute admission to a specialized stroke center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early mobilization (EM) post-stroke is recommended; however, the ideal timing and nature of EM, and factors that may influence EM practice are unclear. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to describe the type and extent of mobilization 0-48 h post-stroke admission to acute hospital care. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether pre-stroke functional level, stroke severity, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) administration, and level of consciousness (LOC) predicted any passive, any active, and out-of-bed mobilization (i.e. sitting at edge-of-bed, standing, or ambulation) 0-24 h post-admission. METHODS: A quantitative, cross-sectional, retrospective review of health records of patients admitted to a specialized acute stroke center in 2016 was conducted. RESULTS: Data from 296 eligible health records were abstracted. Median age was 73 years, and 87% of patients had sustained an ischemic stroke. Active, passive, and out-of-bed mobilization occurred in 91.6%, 57.1%, and 24.3% of patients by 12 h post-admission, respectively, and 99.3%, 78.4%, and 77.4% of patients by 48 h post-admission, respectively. Administration of tPA, stroke severity, and impaired LOC, were each associated with any passive mobilization, and no tPA administration, stroke severity, and normal LOC were each associated with out-of-bed mobilization 0-24 h post-admission (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all patients receive active mobilization by 12 h post-admission whereas out-of-bed mobilization is infrequent. In the first 24 h post-admission, clinicians may prioritize passive over out-of-bed mobilization when patients have received tPA, present with severe stroke, and have impaired LOC. This conservative approach is unsurprising given the lack of clear practice recommendations for these situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".