In search of Kipling’s six honest serving men in upper limb rehabilitation: within participant case-crossover experiment nested within a web-based questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In search of Kipling’s six honest serving men in upper limb rehabilitation after stroke, we sought to investigate clinicians’ perspective of when and where to begin therapy, how much and what therapy to provide, and who and why (or not) to provide therapy.Materials & methods: Within-participant case cross-over experiments were nested within an anonymous web-based questionnaire (21 questions, three cases). Graph theory-based voting to produce ranked ordered lists and mixed-effect logistic regression were performed.Results In total, 225 Australian stroke clinicians responded: 53% occupational therapists, 61% working in acute/inpatient stroke setting. Most respondents indicated they did not have a protocol/expectation regarding when (62%), how much (84%) or what (60%) therapy to provide in their setting. Respondents ranked 24-h to 7-days post-stroke as the optimal time to commence therapy, and 30- to 60-min per day as the optimal dose to provide. Within-participant experiments demonstrated that greater motor recovery as time progressed increased the odds of offering therapy, while lack of motor recovery, shoulder pain, neurological decline and sole therapist reduced the odds.Conclusion We need to develop an evidence base concerning Kipling’s six honest serving men and equip clinicians with clinical decision-making skills aligned with this focus.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMost clinicians did not have access to a protocol / clinical pathway which defines when, how much and what upper limb therapy to provide after stroke, which may be improved by providing individual clinicians with organisational support to make therapy decisions.To improve the personalisation of upper limb rehabilitation in clinical practice, we need to understand when and where after stroke to begin therapy, how much and what therapy to provide, as well as who and why (clinical decision-making) to provide therapy.Clinicians perceive clinical trials as successful if the therapy can demonstrate recovery that is greater than a minimal clinical important difference (MCID).
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 | 0.067 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".