MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W121825290

Intensive rehabilitation combined with HBO2 therapy in children with cerebral palsy: a controlled longitudinal study.

2014· article· en· W121825290 on OpenAlexaff
Arun Mukherjee, Maxime Raison, Tarun Sahni, Anand Arya, Jean Lambert, Pierre Marois, P. B. James, Audrey Parent, Laurent Ballaz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperbaric oxygenCerebral palsyRehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyGross Motor Function Classification SystemMotor functionObservational studyAnesthesiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to assess the effect of intensive rehabilitation combined with hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy on gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: We carried out an open, observational, platform-independent study in 150 children with cerebral palsy with follow-up over eight months to compare the effects of standard intensive rehabilitation only (control group n = 20) to standard intensive rehabilitation combined with one of three different hyperbaric treatments. The three hyperbaric treatments used were: air (FiO2 = 21%) pressurized to 1.3 atmospheres absolute/atm abs (n = 40); 100% oxygen pressurized at 1.5 atm abs (n = 32); and 100% oxygen, pressurized at 1.75 atm abs (n = 58). Each subject assigned to a hyperbaric arm was treated one hour per day, six days per week during seven weeks (40 sessions). Gross motor function measure (GMFM) was evaluated before the treatments and at two, four, six and eight months after beginning the treatments. RESULTS: All four groups showed improvements over the course of the treatments in the follow-up evaluations (p < 0.001). However, GMFM improvement in the three hyperbaric groups was significantly superior to the GMFM improvement in the control group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the three hyperbaric groups. CONCLUSION: The eight-month-long benefits we have observed with combined treatments vs. rehabilitation can only have been due to a beneficial effect of hyperbaric treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207