Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: It is the proposed generic aim of this investigation “Cognitive Rehabilitation in Hemiplegia”. Post stroke Method: A total of 30 patients with hemiplegia post stroke with mildly to moderately impaired cognitive functions that belongs to age group of 45-65 years. The gender distribution was found 17 males and 13 females out of total 30 stroke patients. The entire population randomly assigned for the intervention and will not put emphasis of diagnostic specifies like level of severity and comorbidity. The subjects for the research for selective on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subjects will be grouped into pre and post-test experimental group. Interventions were administered five times per week for 8 weeks using by (Cognitive rehabilitation therapy CRT) Outcomes were evaluated using the Montreal cognitive assessment (Moca) and Barthel Index scale (BI). Result: After 8 weeks treatment of cognitive rehabilitation therapy (CRT) showed higher improvement in most of cognitive assessments for hemiplegic. The pre-test & post-test of Montreal cognitive assessment scale Barthel index test was showing statistically highly significant. Conclusion: We achieved maximum level of cognitive functioning in population with hemiplegia post stroke only. As they are regulated and taken to regular occupational therapy intervention protocol session consisting of Cognitive rehabilitation therapy CRT are showed effective in improving the cognitive function of patients with mild to moderate hemiplegia due to stroke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".