MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975031501 · doi:10.1177/0883073809344621

Upper Extremity Function and Occupational Performance in Children With Spastic Cerebral Palsy Following Lower Extremity Botulinum Toxin Injections

2010· article· en· W1975031501 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tal Keren-Capelovitch, Tal Jarus, Aviva Fattal‐Valevski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAmerican Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine
KeywordsCerebral palsyMedicineBotulinum toxinSpasticPhysical therapySpastic cerebral palsyGross Motor Function Classification SystemPhysical medicine and rehabilitationUpper limbNeurologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the effect of botulinum toxin A injections to the lower extremities of spastic cerebral palsy children on upper limb body function and occupational performance. A total of 16 children with spastic cerebral palsy, aged 2 to 8 years, Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I-IV, referred to a child neurology outpatient clinic for botulinum toxin A injections to the lower limbs, underwent 4 assessments: 1 month prior to injection, immediate pre injection, and at 1 and 5 to 6 months post injection. Three tools were used to test everyday function (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory) and upper extremity body function (Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test). Significant improvement was documented between the immediate preinjection and the 2 postinjection assessments, indicating that improvement lasted for at least 6 months. Botulinum toxin A injections to the lower extremities in children with cerebral palsy improve upper limb body function and occupational performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207