Bridging Gaps in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Intensity for Post-Stroke Population in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the treatment intensity applied in neurorehabilitation centers in Spain and its relationship with sociodemographic, biomedical, and cognitive variables in post-stroke patients. Current guidelines recommend rehabilitation sessions lasting at least 45 min per day, 2-5 days/week, but there is no consensus on neuropsychology intensity. METHOD: This Spanish multicenter, observational, descriptive cross-sectional study included 163 adult participants diagnosed with stroke, collecting 48 biopsychosocial variables. Statistical analyses, including non-parametric tests and linear regressions, were conducted to assess the relationship between intervention intensity and the studied variables. RESULTS: Our findings reveal an average neuropsychology of 59 min/week, significantly below international recommendations for intensive therapies. Patients in subacute phases (<6 months) and those with severe cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment <21) receive higher-intensity interventions, though still far from optimal standards. Significant differences were also identified between center types, reflecting variations in the resources available. CONCLUSION: This study not only highlights the need to establish clear intensity criteria in neuropsychology but also provides a foundation for future experimental studies to evaluate the impact of increased intensity on cognitive outcomes. Additionally, future research should analyze whether the observed differences between center types could lead to inequalities in access to therapies. These unique data in the Spanish context can serve as a starting point for designing more equitable and effective clinical guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".