Intensive rehabilitation combined with HBO2 therapy in children with cerebral palsy: a controlled longitudinal study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".