MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998103901 · doi:10.1097/pep.0b013e3181beb039

Effects of Aquatic Aerobic Exercise for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: Single-Subject Design

2009· article· en· W1998103901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Runzun Retarekar, Maria A. Fragala-Pinkham, Elise L. Townsend

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsySpastic diplegiaAerobic exercisePhysical therapyGross Motor Function Classification SystemPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHydrotherapyMedicineGross motor skillRehabilitationPsychologyMotor skillPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of an aquatic aerobic exercise program for a child with cerebral palsy. METHODS: A 5-year-old girl with spastic diplegia classified at level III on the Gross Motor Function Classification System participated in this single-subject A-B-A design study. The aquatic aerobic exercise intervention was carried out 3 times per week for 12 weeks at an intensity of 50% to 80% of heart rate reserve. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Gross Motor Function Measure, and 6-minute walk test were used as outcomes. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were found in the participation, activity, and body function components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health model. Improvements in functional abilities and walking endurance and speed were recorded. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that an aquatic aerobic exercise program was effective for this child with cerebral palsy and support the need for additional research in this area.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Physical TherapySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207