Development of priorities for a Canadian strategy to advance activity-based therapies after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Participatory design. OBJECTIVES: Activity-based therapies (ABT) have physical and psychosocial benefits for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). A Canadian ABT summit was held to: (1) identify methods used in stroke rehabilitation that may be appropriate for SCI; (2) understand the current state of ABT activities in Canada; and (3) identify priorities for ABT research and care for the next five years. SETTING: Stakeholder-engaged meeting at a tertiary rehabilitation hospital. METHODS: Thirty-nine stakeholders, including individuals with SCI, frontline clinicians, healthcare administrators, researchers, funders and health policy experts, attended. Two participants were note-takers. Priority identification occurred through input from stakeholder groups, followed by individual voting. Conventional content analysis was used to synthesize the information in the meeting notes. RESULTS: The strengths of ABT in stroke rehabilitation included clear and clinically feasible definitions, measurements and interventions, and recognized requirements for implementation (e.g. behavior change, partnerships). Knowledge gaps concerning ABT activities in Canada were identified for acute and community settings, non-traumatic populations, and the interventions, equipment and standardized measures (i.e. upper limb, activity levels) used. Five priorities for ABT across the continuum of care were identified: (1) Identify current ABT activities; (2) Create a network to facilitate dialog; (3) Track engagement in ABT activities; (4) Develop and implement best practice recommendations; and (5) Study optimal timing, methods, and dose of ABT. Working groups were formed to address priorities 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities will guide SCI research and care activities in Canada over the next five years. SPONSORSHIP: Praxis Spinal Cord Institute.
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 | 0.156 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".