A Prospective Evaluation of the WeeFIM in Patients With Cerebral Palsy Undergoing Orthopaedic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although frequently used in pediatric rehabilitation settings, the WeeFIM has not been tested in surgical pediatric orthopaedic patients. METHODS: The WeeFIM was administered to patients with surgical cerebral palsy at defined intervals preoperatively and at both 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The age-adjusted change scores from baseline to follow-up were tested both parametrically and nonparametrically. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-eight patients had baseline evaluations. There were 161 six-month follow-up assessments and 108 twelve-month follow-up assessments. The baseline WeeFIM was able to separate children with different patterns of cerebral palsy. Hemiplegic patients had higher scores than diplegic and tetraplegic patients. Overall age-adjusted scores were improved at both 6 (mean increase 2.0) and 12 months (mean increase 2.2). The instrument showed significant ceiling effects for diplegic and hemiplegic patients with lower or upper extremity surgery and limited responsiveness for lower extremity surgery in tetraplegic patients. Parametrically, it showed improvements in mobility for both rhizotomy and tetraplegic upper extremity surgery. Nonparametric tests were not significant for rhizotomy mobility improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Although the WeeFIM adequately reflects the severity of neurological involvement in pediatric orthopaedic patients with cerebral palsy, it has a significant ceiling effect in diplegic and hemiplegic patients limiting responsiveness and lacks content validity for tetraplegic patients. The instrument may have some use in tetraplegic patients with upper extremity surgery and in rhizotomy patients. We recommend against its general use for orthopaedic surgery in patients with cerebral palsy lower extremity or spine surgery and in hemiplegic patients with upper extremity surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".