Relationships Between Lower Limb Muscle Strength and Locomotor Capacity in Children and Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy Who Walk Independently
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to quantify relationships between lower limb muscle strength and locomotor capacity for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) to identify key muscle groups for strength training. Fifty 6- to 16-year-olds with CP (Gross Motor Function Classification System level I or II) participated. Isometric muscle strength of hip flexor and abductor, knee flexor and extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor muscles was measured using hand-held dynamometry. Ankle plantar flexor concentric muscle strength was assessed as the maximal number of unilateral heel rises. Locomotor capacity was evaluated by the 6-min walk test (6MWT), 10-meter Shuttle Run Test (10mSRT), and Timed Up and Down Stairs Test (TUDS). With control for age, sex, and height, hip flexor and ankle plantar flexor strength explained 47.8% of the variance in the 6MWT and 32.9% of variance in the TUDS and hip abductor isometric strength explained 43.5% of the variance in the 10mSRT. Avenues for future research include randomized controlled trials that specifically target hip flexor muscles, as this has not previously been done, and determining factors other than strength that are likely related to locomotor capacity of children and adolescents with CP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".