MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974858433 · doi:10.1097/pep.0b013e3181825c1b

Assessment Protocol for Serial Casting After Botulinum Toxin A Injections to Treat Equinus Gait

2008· article· en· W1974858433 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Kelly, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Susan Berryman, Joe Hyndman, Ellen Wood

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyGaitMedicineHamstringPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationModified Ashworth scaleBotulinum toxinProtocol (science)SpasticitySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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