The effectiveness of task‐oriented intervention and trunk restraint on upper limb movement quality in children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The goal of this study was to contribute evidence towards the effectiveness of task-oriented training with and without restriction of trunk movement (trunk restraint) on the quality of upper limb movement in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: We used a prospective, single-subject research design in 12 children (three males, nine females; aged 6-11 y; median 9 y) with di-, hemi-, or quadriplegia. Movements of the most affected arm were assessed five times: three times before training, immediately after training, and 3 months after training. The main outcome measures were the Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function (Melbourne) and upper limb movement kinematics during a functional reaching task. Children were randomly allocated to one of two groups: task-oriented training with or without trunk restraint. Treatment consisted of three 1-hour sessions per week for 5 weeks (total training duration 15 h). Treatment effects were determined using single-subject research design analysis--regression through baseline data and standard mean differences. RESULTS: Although the Melbourne scores were largely unchanged after training, some children in each group improved arm trajectory smoothness (effect size 0.55-1.87), and most children improved elbow extension range (effect size 0.55-4.79). However, more children in the trunk restraint group than in the no restraint group demonstrated reduced trunk displacement (effect size 0.94-2.25) and longer-term improvements in elbow extension and trunk use. Among the group who underwent training without trunk restraint, trunk displacement was unchanged or increased, and fewer carry-over effects were apparent at follow-up. INTERPRETATION: This proof-of-principle study showed that greater improvement in the quality of upper limb movement in children with CP, including less compensatory trunk use and better carry-over effects, was achieved by training with trunk restraint.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".