Intervención integral en el ictus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: debate is currently underway about what types of stroke recovery interventions are more beneficial for patients. Objective: evaluate the effect of a six-month comprehensive intervention on the functional recovery of stroke patients. Methods: the study sample was 42 stroke patients: an experimental group (N = 22), mean age 52.68 years (SD = 14.39), who received a comprehensive intensive multidisciplinary intervention, and a control group (N = 20), mean age 56.20 years (SD = 14.82), who did not receive this type of intervention. The following stroke severity indices were applied: Glasgow Coma Scale, Canadian Scale, intensive care unit stay, uncal latching signs, endocranial hypertension signs, hematoma volume / ischemic area, midline displacement, need for surgery and total hospital stay time. These severity indices were similar in the two groups. Degree of functionality was gauged with the scales Functional Independence Measure and Functional Assessment Measure. This test was applied at the start of the intervention and 6 months later. Results: both groups had a positive evolution in all the areas of the scale. The comprehensive intervention and a shorter total hospital stay were associated to better functional recovery from stroke. Conclusions: the need is suggested to implement comprehensive rehabilitation strategies in stroke patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".