MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Additional file 1 of Effectiveness of geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient and day hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W6958191259 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgroup analysisSurvival analysisMortality rateHospital admissionStatistical analysisRisk of mortality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Appendix 1. Search strategy. Appendix 2. Mortality at longest follow up. Fig. S2.1 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S2.2 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80 years. Fig. S2.3 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6 months. Fig. S2.4 Sensitivity analysis for mortality at longest follow up: Studies at low risk of bias from assignment to intervention. Fig. S2.5 Sensitivity analysis for mortality at longest follow up: Studies at low risk of bias from measurement of the outcome. Fig. S2.6 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 3. Mortality at discharge. Fig. S3.1 Subgroup analysis for mortality at discharge: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S3.2 Subgroup analysis for mortality at discharge: mean age < 80 vs ≥ 80 years. Appendix 4. LTCH admission at longest follow up. Fig. S4.1 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6 months. Fig. S4.2 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80 years. Fig. S4.3 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S4.4 Sensitivity analysis: LTCH admission at longest follow up including only those at low risk of bias from assignment of intervention. Fig. S4.5 Sensitivity analysis: LTCH admission at longest follow up including only those at low risk of bias from measurement of outcome. Fig. S4.6 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 5. LTCH admission at discharge. Appendix 6. Functional status at longest follow up. Fig. S6.1 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: attrition < 10% vs. ≥ 10%. Fig. S6.2 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6 months. Fig. S6.3 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S6.4 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 7. Functional status at discharge. Fig. S7.1 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S7.2 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S7.3 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: geriatrician in team. Fig. S7.4 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: OT in team. Fig. S7.5 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: nurse in team. Fig. S7.6 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: social worker in team. Fig. S7.7 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 8. Functional improvement (as defined by authors) at longest follow up. Fig. S8.1 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S8.2 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: attrition < 10% vs. ≥ 10%. Fig. S8.3 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6. Fig. S8.4 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S8.5 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 9. Functional improvement (as defined by authors) at discharge. Appendix 10. Discharge home. Fig. S10.1 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: mean age < 80 vs. > 80. Fig. S10.2 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: attrition < 10% vs. > 10%. Fig. S10.3 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S10.4 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: geriatrician in team. Fig. S10.5 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: OT in team. Fig. S10.6 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: nurse in team. Fig. S10.7 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: social worker in team. Fig. S10.8 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 11. Remaining home at longest follow up. Fig. S11.1 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S11.2 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: attrition < 10% vs. ≥ 10%. Fig. S11.3 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: follow up < 6 vs. > 6 months. Fig. S11.4 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S11.5 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: geriatrician in team. Fig. S11.6 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: OT in team. Fig. S11.7 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: nurse in team. Fig. S11.8 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: social worker in team. Fig. S11.9 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 12. Length of stay in hospital. Fig. S12.1 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: mean age < 80 vs. > 80. Fig. S12.2 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S12.3 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: geriatrician in team. Fig. S12.4 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: OT in team. Fig. S12.5 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: nurse in team. Fig. S12.6 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: social worker in team. Fig. S12.7 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 13. Cognition at longest follow up. Appendix 14. Mood at longest follow up. Fig. S14.1 Subgroup analysis for mood: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S14.2 Subgroup analysis for mood: follow up < 6 vs. > 6 months. Fig. S14.3 Subgroup analysis for mood: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S14.4 Subgroup analysis for mood: geriatrician in team. Fig. S14.5 Subgroup analysis for mood: OT in team. Fig. S14.6 Subgroup analysis for mood: nurse in team. Fig. S14.7 Subgroup analysis for mood: social worker in team. Fig. S14.8 Subgroup analysis for mood: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 15. Quality of life at longest follow up. Fig. S15.1 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S15.2 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: follow up < 6 vs. > 6 months. Fig. S15.3 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: measure of quality of life. Fig. S15.4 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S15.5 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: geriatrician in team. Fig. S15.6 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: OT in team. Fig. S15.7 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: nurse in team. Fig. S15.8 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: social worker in team. Fig. S15.9 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 16. Supplementary table S1: Comparison of outcome estimates with other systematic reviews of geriatric rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7590.032

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→