MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948362511 · doi:10.3233/nre-189006

How effective are treatments for anxiety after stroke? – A Cochrane Review summary with commentary

2019· review· en· W2948362511 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Knapp

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurorehabilitation · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurorehabilitationStroke (engine)RehabilitationAnxietyCochrane collaborationPhysical therapyMedicinePsychological interventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSystematic reviewPsychotherapistPsychologyMEDLINERandomized controlled trialPsychiatryCochrane LibrarySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this commentary is to discuss in a rehabilitation perspective the published Cochrane Review "Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke" by Knapp, Campbell Burton, Holmes, Murray, Gillespie, Lightbody, Watkins, Chun, & Lewis1, under the direct supervision of the Cochrane Stroke Group. This Cochrane Corner is produced in agreement with NeuroRehabilitation by Cochrane Rehabilitation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurorehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207