MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947574499 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000015934

Post-stroke rehabilitation

2019· article· en· W2947574499 on OpenAlexaff
Neal Rakesh, Daniel Boiarsky, Ammar Athar, Shaliesha Hinds, Joel Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)RehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to examine predictors of discharge of hospitalized stroke patients to either an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) or subacute skilled nursing facility (SNF).A retrospective cohort study was done in a large multicampus urban academic medical center of individuals hospitalized for stroke between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015 and who were discharged to either an IRF (n = 84) or SNF (n = 59). A set of characteristics and scales were collected on each patient and assessed using univariate and multivariate regression analyses.Although univariate analyses revealed multiple measures were associated with discharge destination, the most predictive multivariate logistic regression model for discharge to SNF incorporated age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.13), premorbid physical disability (OR 7.52, 95% CI 1.66-34.14), and inability to ambulate before discharge (OR 5.84, 95% CI 2.01-16.92) with an overall c-statistic of 0.85.Increasing age, premorbid physical disability, and inability to ambulate increase the overall likelihood of discharge to a SNF. These findings need to be replicated in larger samples to determine whether they are generalizable.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207