Determinants of gross motor function of young children with cerebral palsy: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to test a model of determinants of gross motor function of young children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Four hundred and twenty-nine children with CP (242 males, 187 females; mean age 3 y 2 mo, SD 11 mo) representing all levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) participated. Children in levels I to II and III to V were classified as Groups 1 and 2 respectively. Distribution of CP was quadriplegia, 44%; hemiplegia, 24%; diplegia, 23%; triplegia, 6%; and monoplegia, 2% (data not available for 1%). Impairment and motor function data were collected by reliable assessors; parents completed questionnaires on health conditions and adaptive behavior. Seven months later, parents were interviewed about family life and services received. One year after the study onset, motor function was re-evaluated. Analysis involved structural equation modeling. RESULTS: The well-fitting model explained 58% and 75% of the variance in motor function at study completion for Groups 1 and 2 respectively. Primary impairments (spasticity, quality of movement, postural stability, and distribution of involvement; β=0.52-0.68) and secondary impairments (strength, range of motion limitations, and reduced endurance; β=0.25-0.26) explained the most variance. Adaptive behavior was a significant determinant only for Group 2 (β=0.21) and participation in community programs was significant only in Group 1 (β=0.13). INTERPRETATION: Motor function is supported by optimizing body structures and function for all children and enhancing adaptive behavior for children with greater motor challenges.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".