Cognition in stroke rehabilitation and recovery research: Consensus-based core recommendations from the second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment is an important target for rehabilitation as it is common following stroke, is associated with reduced quality of life and interferes with motor and other types of recovery interventions. Cognitive function following stroke was identified as an important, but relatively neglected area during the first Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR I), leading to a Cognition Working Group being convened as part of SRRR II. There is currently insufficient evidence to build consensus on specific approaches to cognitive rehabilitation. However, we present recommendations on the integration of cognitive assessments into stroke recovery studies generally and define priorities for ongoing and future research for stroke recovery and rehabilitation. A number of promising interventions are ready to be taken forward to trials to tackle the gap in evidence for cognitive rehabilitation. However, to accelerate progress requires that we coordinate efforts to tackle multiple gaps along the whole translational pathway.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.289 | 0.339 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".