Clinical Applicability of the COMET Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical applicability of the COMET (cog-nition, occupation, mobility, evaluation and training) intervention. Design: A case series was conducted. Participants: Adults who were being considered for PWC provision and who had been identified by an occupational therapist to benefit from a PWC training were included. Intervention: The COMET intervention a goal directed, client-centered and occupation-based, was provided to all participants. Outcome measures: Clinical applicability indicators were collected for: process, resources, management and treatment. Clinical outcomes included the Goal Achievement Scale (GAS), the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Power Mobility Indoor Driving Impairment (PIDA) and the Wheelchair Skill Test (WST). Applicability indicators were evaluated as binary responses (‘successful/unsuccessful’). Results: Four females (62.5 ± 3.5 years) with cognitive impairment participated. Among the thirteen clinical applicability indicators defined, ten were successfully achieved. Indicators that did not meet the criteria for success were adherence rate, safety and treatment for the PIDA. Two of four participants completed all 5 sessions. Two adverse events were reported, with one minor injury. Related to treatment response, participants demonstrated better than expected results on the GAS and the COPM perfor-mance and satisfaction scores. All participants demonstrated improvement of more than 9% at the WST. Only two reported an improvement beyond 4% of the PIDA. Conclusions: With few modifications, the COMET intervention will be applicable in clinical practice. Individuals with complex cognitive and mobility impairment demonstrated abilities to learn PWC use. Further investigation of the COMET intervention is required to evaluate its efficacy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".