Assessment Protocol for Serial Casting After Botulinum Toxin A Injections to Treat Equinus Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate feasibility of an assessment protocol for a trial of post-Botox casting to treat equinus gait in cerebral palsy. METHODS: Ten children (ages, 26-75 months) were recruited. Nine were assessed 1 week before botulinum toxin-A injections and reassessed 1 week after removal of the final cast. The assessment protocol included Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Modified Tardieu Scale (MTS), Gross Motor Function Measure-66 (GMFM-66), Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI), and GAITRite. Feasibility was based on acceptability of the protocol, inter-rater reliability, and responsiveness of outcome measures. RESULTS: The assessment protocol was acceptable and practical. Inter-rater reliability for MAS, MTS, and GMFM ranged from moderate to excellent. Improvements were found in MTS and MAS scores for dorsiflexion and hamstring (p < 0.01), GMFM-66 (p = 0.01), and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory mobility (p = 0.01), self-care (p = 0.01), and social function (p = 0.00). GAITRite revealed reductions in speed (p = 0.00) and cadence (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility was confirmed. Recommendations include raising minimum age and delaying gait analysis.
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 | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".