MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044500057 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040014

Characteristics of activity-based therapy interventions for people living with spinal cord injury or disease across the continuum of care: a scoping review protocol

2020· review· en· W3044500057 on OpenAlexafffund
Anita Kaiser, Katherine Chan, Maureen Pakosh, Kristin E. Musselman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryPsychological interventionProtocol (science)DiseasePhysical therapyHealth careContinuum of carePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineSpinal cordGerontologyNursingPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Individuals living with spinal cord injury and disease (SCI/D) experience sensory and motor impairments below their neurological level of injury. Activity-based therapies (ABT) are interventions that provide activation of the neuromuscular system below the level of lesion with the goal of retraining the nervous system to recover a specific motor task. ABT can lead to increased function and improved quality of life; however, research and clinical settings currently lack tools to track participation in ABT. As a first step towards developing such a tool, a scoping review will be conducted with the objective of identifying the characteristics of ABT that individuals with SCI/D participate in across the continuum of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. Studies that involve at least two sessions of ABT for individuals with SCI/D aged ≥16 years will be included. Seven databases were searched from their inception to 4 March 2020: Medline, Embase, Emcare, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycINFO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search will be rerun in November 2020 prior to manuscript submission. Screening of titles and abstracts will be followed by a review of full texts to identify articles meeting inclusion criteria. Stakeholders will be consulted for the creation of the data extraction table. The Downs and Black Checklist or the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess article quality. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. Study findings will be shared with key stakeholder groups through academic, clinical and public venues.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.014
Bibliometrics0.0190.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.008

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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207