MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009100541 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0000000000000543

Enhancing Stroke Recovery Across the Life Span With Noninvasive Neurostimulation

2020· review· en· W3009100541 on OpenAlexaff
Sean P. Dukelow, Adam Kirton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)NeuromodulationNeurostimulationMedicineNeuroplasticityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke recoveryAffect (linguistics)Life spanNeurosciencePsychologyPhysical therapyStimulationRehabilitationGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke is the leading cause of neurologic disability not only in adults but perinatal and childhood stroke affect millions of children as well worldwide with deficits that last a lifetime. The rapidly increasing evidence base for how noninvasive neuromodulation may enhance stroke recovery in adults may be applicable to the youngest stroke survivors. In return, how the plasticity of the developing brain contributes to stroke recovery and its modulation may provide equally valuable insight toward mechanisms and opportunities for enhancing recovery in all stroke patients. Despite this synergistic relationship, examinations of stroke recovery and neuromodulation across the life span have rarely been considered. Here, we attempt to amalgamate the worlds of adult, childhood, and perinatal stroke to explore the differences and commonalities between the models and approaches that are driving advances in noninvasive neuromodulation toward better outcomes for stroke patients of all ages.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207