Sex Differences in Stroke Rehabilitation Care in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female stroke patients may experience poorer functional outcomes than males following inpatient rehabilitation. METHODS: Data from Alberta inpatient stroke rehabilitation units were examined to determine: (1) the impact of sex on time to inpatient rehabilitation, functional gains (using the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)), length of stay (LOS), and discharge destination; (2) if sex was related to age at the time of stroke, stroke severity, and living arrangement at discharge from rehabilitation; and (3) whether patients' age and preadmission living arrangement had an influence on LOS in rehabilitation or discharge destination. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred sixty-six adult stroke patients (1283 males and 983 females) were subcategorized as mild (FIM >80; n = 1155), moderate (FIM 40-80; n = 994), or severe (FIM <40; n = 117). Fifty-five percent of males (45.7% females) had mild stroke; 39.5% of males (49.5% females) had moderate stroke; and 5.5% of males (4.8% females) had severe stroke. Females were significantly older than males (p = 2.4 × 10-4). No sex difference existed in time from acute care to rehabilitation admission (p = 0.73) or in mean FIM change (p = 0.294). Mean LOS was longer for females than males (p=0.018). Males were more likely than females to be discharged home (p = 1.8 × 10-13). Further, male patients (p = 6.4 × 10-7) and those < 65 years (p = 1.4 × 10-23) were more likely to be discharged home without homecare. CONCLUSION: There are significant sex and age differences in LOS in rehabilitation and discharge destination of stroke patients. These differences may suggest that sex and age of the patient need to be considered in care planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".