MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006074205 · doi:10.1177/0008417420905706

Intention to Return to Work after Stroke Following Rehabilitation in Ontario

2020· article· en· W3006074205 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Patrick Duong, Mary Egan, Matthew J. Meyer, Tricia Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationStroke (engine)Work (physics)MedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND.: Returning to work is important for many people following stroke. An estimate of the prevalence of people intending to return to work post-stroke would be helpful in planning services supporting work reintegration. PURPOSE.: This study examined the prevalence of intention to return to work after discharge among stroke rehabilitation inpatients. METHODS.: We performed secondary analysis of National Rehabilitation Reporting System data for all stroke rehabilitation inpatients across Ontario (2012-2017). Intention to return to work was examined by gender, age, and level of disability. FINDINGS.: Among 25,691 stroke rehabilitation inpatients, 4,668 (18.2%) were employed pre-stroke and 2,039 (43.7%) of them intended to return to work. Intention to return to work was somewhat higher among younger and middle-aged stroke survivors and those with mild disability. IMPLICATIONS.: Providers and planners should be aware that almost half of previously employed stroke-rehabilitation inpatients may be seeking services to assist with return to work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207