Визначення ефективності методу Кабата в комплексній програмі з реабілітації інсультних хворих
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Цереброваскулярні ураження головного мозку з кожним роком стають усе частішою причиною смертності або інвалідизації населення. Наявна система надання допомоги таким хворим потребує подальшого вдосконалення. Розглянуто проблему фізичної реабілітації постінсультних хворих. Методом аналізу наукової літератури визначено пацієнторієнтовану методику відновлення порушеної рухової функції в цих пацієнтів. Показано результати відновлення рухової дисфункції у хворих на цереброваскулярні захворювання головного мозку із застосуванням методу Кабата за результатами тестування за шкалою тяжкості інсульту Торонто й індексу щоденної діяльності Бартел. Cerebrovascular brain damages become more and more often reason of death or disablement of population with every year. The existing system of aiding requires further improvement. It is considered the problem of physical rehabilitation of post-stroke patients. By analyzing the scientific literature it was identified patient-oriented methodology of recovery of disordered motor function of these patients. It was presented the results of recovery of motor dysfunction of the ill with cerebrovascular disease of brain with using the method of Kabat for the test results on the scale of severity of stroke Toronto and index of daily activities of Barthel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.014 |
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".