Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Predicting the success of rehabilitation in patients who have suffered an ischemic stroke (IS) is determined by factors of rehabilitation potential (RP). Assessment of RP is necessary to develop an effective rehabilitation program and predict the degree of restoration of impaired functions. Objective. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation in patients who have undergone IS. Materials and methods. A prospective study was carried out on 177 patients who were treated in the neurological department for patients with acute cerebrovascular accident and the neurorehabilitation department of the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Bashkortostan of the Clinical Emergency Hospital in Ufa. All patients underwent clinical neurological, neuroimaging, laboratory and instrumental studies. The NIHSS, Rankin, Rivermead, Montreal Cognitive Function Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, A. M. questionnaire were used. Wein, T. Ehlers test and A. M. Schubert technique. The assessment of the RP was carried out using the analysis of data from the "Rehabilitation Sheet". Results. The majority of patients with IS were diagnosed with cognitive, anxiety-depressive disorders, and dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system. During treatment, the number of patients with mild neurological deficits, mild disabilities and an average level of mobility increased significantly. Based on a combination of factors, 74% of patients had medium and high levels of RP. In our study, according to the T. Ehlers test, 82.9% of patients before treatment had a medium to high degree of motivation to succeed. Conclusion. An integrated and individualized approach to the correction of various pathological disorders in patients who have undergone IS, taking into account RP, is the key to the effectiveness of restorative treatment at the stages of 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".