The Relationship Between Gross Motor Function and Manual Ability in Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective cohort study was conducted to describe the relationship between gross motor function and manual ability in children with cerebral palsy and explore differences between cerebral palsy subtypes and associated comorbidities. Children with cerebral palsy born between 1999 and 2008 were included from the Registre de la Paralyse Cérébrale de Québec identifying 332 children. The overall agreement between Gross Motor Function Classification System and Manual Ability Classification Scale Levels was moderate (kappa 0.457, standard error 0.034) with a strong positive correlation (Spearman rho of 0.820, standard error 0.023). This agreement was moderate among children with spastic quadriparesis and dysketic cerebral palsy, fair in children with spastic diplegia, and poor in children with spastic hemiplegia. Children with cognitive impairment showed a higher correlation than those without cognitive impairment. The correlation between gross motor function and manual ability in children with CP varies based on neurologic subtype and cognitive level.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".