MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982450966 · doi:10.1177/1747493019879657

A stroke recovery trial development framework: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

2019· article· en· W2982450966 on OpenAlexafffund
Julie Bernhardt, Kathryn S. Hayward, Numa Dancause, Natasha A. Lannin, Nick Ward, Randolph J. Nudo, Amanda Farrin, Leonid Churilov, Lara A. Boyd, Theresa A. Jones, S. Thomas Carmichael, Dale Corbett, Steven C. Cramer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchIpsen
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationStroke (engine)Stroke recoveryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical trialCore (optical fiber)Physical therapyPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major goal of the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) is to accelerate development of effective treatments to enhance stroke recovery beyond that expected to occur spontaneously or with current approaches. In this paper, we describe key issues for the next generation of stroke recovery treatment trials and present the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable Trials Development Framework (SRRR-TDF). An exemplar (an upper limb recovery trial) is presented to demonstrate the utility of this framework to guide the GO, NO-GO decision-making process in trial development.

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)0.735
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.684
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7350.684
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.018
Bibliometrics0.0140.010
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0270.013
Open science0.0260.025
Research integrity0.0390.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations88
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207