Canadian Stroke Congress 2019 Abstract Supplement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There have been recent advancements in the development of guidelines for rehabilitation after stroke. Nevertheless, recommendations for specific practice areas such as oral care often lack adequate information for clinical processes and actions to attain evidence-based care. Methods: We have developed a protocol to update a recent systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for stroke1 and to appraise existing recommendations for oral care provision. The search strategy includes a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE with MeSH and user-defined terms, 20 organizational and best-practice websites, and reference lists of accepted guidelines. Guideline appraisal will involve AGREE II ratings followed by a descriptive synopsis for oral care recommendations according to NHMRC evidence levels. Results: Our preliminary search of databases and websites yielded 863 and 787 citations, respectively, for a total of 1650. Subsequent to abstract and full article review, we expect to identify high-quality stroke guidelines with recommendations for oral care provision. Conclusion: Precise and attainable recommendations for oral care in stroke patients are urgently needed to prevent negative outcomes such as respiratory tract infections. Our appraisal of the level of evidence from oral care recommendations will support the development of initiatives and evidence-based practice across the continuum of care. We anticipate that our systematic review will provide insight and direction for implementation research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.453 | 0.177 |
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".