MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2598254545 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.2.71a

Case 4: Isolated gross motor delay with ‘sitting on air’ position in an otherwise healthy 17-month-old

2016· article· en· W2598254545 sur OpenAlexaff
Susan A. Bobbitt, Lyn K. Sonnenberg

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Établissements canadiensGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSittingGirlPosition (finance)MedicineGross motor skillPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsPsychologyMotor skillDevelopmental psychologyPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A 17-month-old girl presented with an isolated delay in walking. She first sat at six months of age and was an efficient ‘bum-scooter’. She pulled to stand alongside furniture, and started cruising at 17 months of age. She did not take independent steps. The child was the product of a healthy pregnancy, with normal fetal growth and movement. She was born at term and was a well child. There was no history of developmental regression and no family history of developmental delay, or neuromuscular or metabolic disease. Her parents and older sibling were healthy. Her general physical examination was within normal limits. She had equal muscle bulk bilaterally and good range of movement in all limbs. Her reflexes were 2+ globally, with downgoing plantar responses. She pulled to stand, cruised and demonstrated controlled lowering from standing. She mobilized quickly by scooting along on her buttocks. She demonstrated hip flexion and knee extension in vertical suspension when carried around the room. She had a right hand preference but used both hands efficiently. Expressive and receptive language skills were advanced and she was a very social child. She progressed to walking independently at 19 months of age. Delayed motor development is a common referral question for general paediatricians as well as several other paediatric sub-specialists. It is often challenging to differentiate between children who fall into the realm of normal developmental variation and those who will develop significant motor disorders. Dissociation of motor maturation (DMM) is a relatively unknown and underdiagnosed clinical syndrome. Identification of DMM is reliably made when the child demonstrates the classic ‘sitting on air’ position, which is recognized by a straight back, flexion, moderate abduction and outward rotation of the hips, extension of the knees and dorsiflexion or plantar flexion of the feet when held in vertical suspension (Figure 1). The position is elicited both when the child is at ease and when the child is angry. DMM is further characterized by normal cognitive, language, social-emotional and fine motor development, with an isolated delay in gross motor skills. Children with DMM generally achieve head and arm control within the expected timeframe but are delayed in achieving gross motor milestones, including sitting, standing and/or cruising, and walking. Child demonstrating ‘sitting on air’ position. Note the flexed and abducted hips, extended knees and dorsiflexed toes when held in vertical suspension DMM was first described in 1969 and further expanded by Haidvogl (1) in 1979. The early descriptions of DMM described generalized hypotonia with preserved deep-tendon reflexes and early ambulation by means of bottom shuffling, hitching, sliding or scooting. A positive family history of similar early ambulation was observed in many of the children. Later descriptions expanded the diagnosis by describing children with “dissociated motor development simulating cerebral palsy”, which defined a condition in which the fine motor milestones appeared within the expected timeframe, while gross motor milestones were markedly delayed without obvious neurological findings. Other features that have been described with this syndrome include frequent temper tantrums and stereotyped motor movements. More recently, DiMario (2) observed a group of children referred to his paediatric neurology clinic for evaluation of developmental delay, hypotonia, weakness and to rule out cerebral palsy (CP). The children received a diagnosis of DMM if they: attained age appropriate milestones in all developmental sectors except gross motor development; had normal general and neurological physical examinations; and assumed the ‘sitting on air’ position during the consultation. Generalized hypotonia without weakness was an additional feature identified in several of these children. All children who met the inclusion criteria for DMM (n=8) ultimately had a normal motor developmental outcome and achieved independent walking by 20.1 months of age. DMM may be considered a specific outcome for children who are identified early on with congenital hypotonia with favourable outcome (formerly known as benign congenital hypotonia). It is also important to consider CP in the differential diagnosis of a child presenting with hypotonia and delayed motor development. Delayed, but ultimately normal motor outcomes, along with a normal neurological examination aside from hypotonia, will differentiate children with DMM from those who progress to receive a diagnosis of CP. Although clinical follow-up is necessary to ensure anticipated acquirement of motor skills and a normal developmental trajectory, routine laboratory testing and neuroimaging modalities are not needed and should only be obtained if there are clinical indications or physical examination findings indicating an entity other than DMM. DMM is characterized by a delay in achieving gross motor milestones, while cognitive, language, social-emotional and fine motor development are achieved within the expected timeframes. The ‘sitting on air’ position is a characteristic feature of the syndrome, and serves as a useful diagnostic sign for a normal anticipated prognosis in children presenting with delayed motor milestones. Laboratory investigations and neuroimaging modalities should be individualized, and performed only if there are associated clinical or neurological indications.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: Étude de cas
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders→Travaux en français237 207→