The relationship of cerebral palsy subtype and functional motor impairment: a population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Traditionally, cerebral palsy (CP) had been classified according to the distribution and quality of motor impairment. A standardized functional classification of gross motor skills has recently been validated - the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). The relationship between the neurological subtype of CP and GMFCS level remains undefined in CP. METHOD: The Quebec Cerebral Palsy Registry (Registre de la paralysie cérébrale au Québec [REPACQ]) over a 4-year birth interval (1999-2002 inclusive) identified 301 children with CP. Information on both CP subtype and GMFCS level was available for 243 children (138 males, 105 females) with final data extraction at a mean age of 44 months (SD 14mo, range 24-79mo). Proportions of children with a particular CP subtype at GMFCS levels I to III versus levels IV to V were determined and compared. RESULTS: CP subtype versus GMFCS levels I to III or IV to V was distributed proportionally as follows: spastic diplegic, 51/52 (98%) versus 1/52 (2%); spastic quadriparetic, 20/85 (24%) versus 65/85 (76%); spastic hemiplegic, 76/77 (99%) versus 1/77 (1%); dyskinetic, 4/16 (25%) versus 12/16 (75%); other (triplegic or ataxic-hypotonic), 10/13 (77%) versus 3/13 (23%). These distributions (proportions) all yielded significant (p<0.001) Pearson chi(2) values. INTERPRETATION: Neurological subtype is a powerful predictor of functional status related to ambulation. This has implications for counseling families.
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 | 0.000 | 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".