MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402721967 · doi:10.1145/3670947.3670978

A Data Visualization Tool for Patients and Healthcare Providers to Communicate during Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation

2024· article· en· W4402721967 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGraphics Interface · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBruyèreMcGill UniversityCarleton University
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsVisualizationRehabilitationHealth careData visualizationStroke (engine)Computer scienceMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. The efficacy of stroke recovery is determined by various factors, including patient adherence to their rehabilitation program. Effective communication between healthcare providers and patients is crucial for promoting patients’ adherence to rehabilitation programs. Aiming to support patient-healthcare provider communication during inpatient stroke rehabilitation, we (1) conducted semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers with expertise in inpatient stroke recovery to extract design requirements for visualizing stroke recovery progress. Using these design requirements, we (2) designed a data visualization tool representing stroke recovery. We (3) sought feedback on the visualization designs from healthcare providers and patients and integrated their feedback into the designs. Informed by the results of our studies, we provided several considerations for designing future visualization tools for patients and providers to communicate during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.328 · 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