Protocol for a scoping review on rehabilitation among individuals who experience homelessness and traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation is key to improving outcomes and quality of life after traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, individuals experiencing homelessness are rarely represented in research that informs evidence-based rehabilitation guidelines even though TBI is disproportionately prevalent among this population. This protocol is for a scoping review to explore the extent to which rehabilitation, including the types of rehabilitation interventions, is available to, or used by, individuals who experience homelessness and TBI to inform (1) opportunities to integrate rehabilitation for individuals experiencing homelessness and TBI, (2) considerations for existing clinical and practice guidelines for rehabilitation and (3) recommendations for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be guided by six stages described in scoping review methodology frameworks. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Embase Classic, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Clinical Trials, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, and Nursing and Allied Health), reference list of included articles and scoping or systematic reviews identified from the search and grey literature, defined as reports from relevant brain injury, housing and rehabilitation organisations, will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen all articles based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A descriptive numerical summary of data items will be provided and qualitative content analytic techniques will be used to identify and report common themes. Preliminary findings will be shared with stakeholders to seek feedback on the implications of the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics review will not be required, as only publicly available data will be analysed. Findings from the scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings and to stakeholders, defined as service providers in the housing and TBI sectors; health professionals who provide care for individuals with TBI and/or homelessness; health administrators, decision-makers and policy-makers; researchers; and caregivers or family members of individuals with lived experience of TBI and homelessness.
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 | 0.146 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.030 |
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".