Training volunteers to support a tablet-based aphasia program with inpatients in a stroke rehabilitation unit: A win–win situation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meeting rehabilitation intensity goals in an inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit is a constant challenge due to staffing and budget constraints, a situation further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. To bridge the gap, speech-language pathologists often provide independent practice (traditionally paper and pen exercises and more recently tablet-based); however, patients can have trouble completing these programs independently. Caregivers can help but may be overwhelmed during the inpatient rehabilitation process. In this case study, we enlisted student volunteers from a local health-related program to offer individualized supplemental tablet-based aphasia practice as an adjunct to standard therapy with a speech-language pathologist for people with aphasia. Five adults with aphasia (2 women and 3 men; aged 37 to 80, mean age 58.2) were admitted to an inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit and received supervised sessions during off-therapy hours. Participants attended 57/62 (91.9%) of available sessions, ranging from 5 to 24 sessions per participant. Mean session duration per participant ranged from 56 to 92 minutes. All student volunteers remained engaged over 5 months with no attrition. This program shows that volunteers can support the delivery of a tablet-based program as an adjunct to conventional aphasia therapy to boost rehabilitation intensity during an inpatient stroke rehabilitation admission. [198 words].
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".