MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400495911 · doi:10.33424/futurum511

How does exercise help recovering stroke patients?

2024· article· en· W4400495911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sue Peters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Physical therapyMedicinePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How does exercise help recovering stroke patients?The after-effects of a stroke can severely alter a person's quality of life.Effects range from mobility issues to changes in brain function.However, the brain is surprisingly adaptable and often, with the right approaches, these lost functions can be partly or completely restored.At Western University in Canada, Dr Sue Peters, is investigating the role of exercise in improving post-stroke recovery, and has found some promising results. GlossaryGrowth factor -a biological molecule that affects the growth and division of cells Neuroimagingproducing images of the brain using bioimaging techniques Neuroplasticity -the ability of the nervous system to reorganise parts of itself, especially following injury Neurotransmitter -a chemical messenger secreted by a nerve cell that stimulates activity in another cell Physical therapy -a healthcare profession that focuses on improving the body's physical movements Physiology -the field of biology that focuses on how the bodies of living organisms work Rehabilitation -the process of returning to a good quality of life following a health issue Stroke -a medical incident that happens when blood supply to part of the brain is disrupted, leading to damage to that part of the brain

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→