Female participation in Canadian stroke rehabilitation trials: Comparing trial participants to the inpatient rehabilitation population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 1) to determine whether the sex distribution and other characteristics of Canadian stroke rehabilitation trial participants differ from the inpatient stroke rehabilitation population in Canada 2) to explore whether trial eligibility criteria may be impacting the proportion of females participating in stroke trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using Canadian inpatient stroke rehabilitation population and three stroke rehabilitation clinical trials data. Between-group differences in population and trial data were described and a participant to prevalence ratio for females was calculated. Trial eligibility criteria were examined in the context of the inpatient stroke rehabilitation population characteristics to explore whether eligibility criteria may be disproportionately excluding females. RESULTS: There were 201 trial participants (29.4 % female) and 37,047 patients admitted to inpatient stroke rehabilitation (44.8 % female). The overall participant to prevalence ratio for females was 0.66. Females admitted to inpatient stroke rehabilitation were older than males (p<.001), with no sex difference in age in trial participants (p=.114). A significantly smaller proportion of female trial participants had a diagnosis of hypertension compared to females admitted to inpatient rehabilitation (41.4 % vs 66.2 %; p <.001). This difference was not observed for males. Compared to males, females admitted to inpatient rehabilitation more frequently had characteristics (mood disorder, living alone, discharged to long-term care), which may have resulted in their exclusion from ≥1 of the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Females enrolled in stroke rehabilitation trials are underrepresented compared to inpatient rehabilitation. Trial eligibility criteria may result in the disproportionate exclusion of females compared to males.
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 | 0.026 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".