MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impairment, Disability, and Satisfaction Outcomes After Lower-Extremity Botulinum Toxin A Injections for Children with Cerebral Palsy

2002· article· en· W1967577972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria A. Fragala, Margaret E. O Neil, Helene M. Dumas

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsySpasticityMedicineAmbulatoryPhysical therapyBotulinum toxinRange of motionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGoal Attainment ScalingModified Ashworth scaleRehabilitationAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to document impairment, disability, and parent satisfaction outcomes for children with cerebral palsy who received botulinum toxin A (BtA) injections. METHODS: Seven children, three to 11 years old, participated in this multiple single-subject AB design study. Impairment, disability, and satisfaction outcomes were documented using passive range of motion measurements, Modified Ashworth Scale scores, and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. These outcomes were measured every two weeks during the two-month baseline phase and the four-month intervention phase. Outcomes for each child were graphed and visually analyzed for changes in level, trend, and slope. RESULTS: After BtA injections, all children demonstrated an increase in passive range of motion and a decrease in spasticity in at least some of the injected muscles. Six of the seven children demonstrated improvements in disability and parent satisfaction outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in a variety of outcomes may be observed after BtA injections in children with cerebral palsy and lower-extremity spasticity who are ambulatory.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Physical TherapySame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207