MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312065932 · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02147-4

Age-specific information resources to address the needs of young people with stroke: a scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4312065932 on OpenAlexaff
Urvashy Gopaul, Marina Charalambous, Shamala Thilarajah, Li Khim Kwah, Sherita Chapman, Mark Bayley, Marika Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInclusion (mineral)RehabilitationStroke (engine)Protocol (science)MEDLINEInformation needsInclusion and exclusion criteriaGerontologyNursingMedical educationAlternative medicineWorld Wide WebPhysical therapyPathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Young people with stroke (YPwS) persistently experience challenges with disability, social reintegration, employment, and financial stability to provide for themselves and their families. The aims of this scoping review are to (1) identify and collate information resources for YPwS and evidence-based self-managements programs and (2) identify gaps in age-specific resources available for YPwS after traditional rehabilitation services have ended and/or who are returning to live in the community. METHODS: We will include both qualitative and quantitative studies, including all study designs. Participants will be community-dwelling adults aged between 18 and 65 years with a clinical diagnosis of stroke. We will include information resources and evidence-based self-managements programs for YPwS. Search terms will include stroke, young people, and community dwelling. We will search electronic databases such as MEDLINE. The reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and stroke guidelines and stroke-specific websites will also be searched. We will also contact Stroke Support Organizations and international/national allied health professional organisations to gather information resources about YPwS. We will also conduct a comprehensive environmental scan of additional resources using the search engine Google. The titles, abstracts, full-text articles, and contents of the resources identified by the search will be assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify potentially relevant resources. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Existing resources and self-management programs will be collated and categorized according to the type of needs addressed such as physical, emotions, activities of daily living, information, relationships, and social needs as well as the key gaps identified.

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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0210.019
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.014

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207