Occupational therapy in rehabilitation of complex patients: protocol for a superiority randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-centered, interprofessional occupational therapy is feasible in complex patients in the early phase of rehabilitation, and it contributes to meet needs in the domains of self-care, productivity, and leisure, promoting social role. We planned this single-center single-blind two-arm parallel individual patient randomized controlled trial, to verify the superiority of interprofessional experimental occupational therapy (EOT) compared to standard rehabilitation (SR) in producing higher levels of patients’ social participation assessed by the Reintegration to Normal Living Index. EOT is a patient-centered, hospital/home-based rehabilitation intervention based on the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement. This appropriately powered study will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of EOT on the recovery of social participation in the critical transition of complex patients from hospital to the home setting.
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 | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.013 |
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".