Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are thankful to Dr. Asirvatham T for his/her critical and thoughtful reading the article and further giving the valuable comments. In response to the comments, it is to submit that the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) has been strongly recommended for the stroke trials.[1] Worldwide, mRS is being applied by not only in the rehabilitation trials but also to assess the global disability in pharmacological studies. The average poststroke duration was 40 months (chronic) in our study;[2] mRS is more appropriate during this stage. The study of Delfino et al. (2025), published now (after the completion of Pandian et al., 2024), has emphasized the use of utility-weighted mRS. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale is a recommended measure for the stroke severity considering arterial involvement, primarily in the acute stage but not for the global disability.[1,3] Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a recommended measure of cognitive assessment in stroke.[4] In the last few decades, this measure was commonly used in numerous stroke rehabilitation trials. MoCA has also been recommended for stroke subjects with aphasia.[5] In the present study (Pandian et al., 2024), the subjects with severe communication deficits were one of the exclusion criteria. In conclusion, the stroke-related measure of disability was selected considering the global application of the tool. Similarly, the measure of cognition was applied in view of the evidence, applicability, and also considering the chronicity of stroke subjects in our study. Financial Support and Sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".