MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030192475 · doi:10.3138/ptc.2010-06

Applying Motor-Control Theory to Physical Therapy Practice: A Case Report

2011· article· en· W2030192475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa K. Kenyon, Mary T. Blackinton

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyTask (project management)Control (management)Motor controlClimbingMotor skillClinical PracticePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotor learningAffect (linguistics)PsychologyComputer sciencePhysical therapyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This case report describes the application of an integrated, systems-based theory of motor control to physical therapy practice.Client Description: The patient was a 5-year-old boy with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy who was entering kindergarten. Parent concerns related to the child's safety in playground activities such as playing on the slide. INTERVENTIONS: Motor-control theory, including factors related to the task, the environment, and the individual, was used to guide and direct physical therapy management related to the patient goal of safely and effectively climbing the ladder to the playground slide.Patient Outcomes: When the child entered kindergarten, he was able to safely ascend the ladder to the playground slide, using a modified movement pattern, when distractions were minimized. However, attentional issues continued to affect task execution when other children were present. IMPLICATIONS: This case report demonstrates a means by which current knowledge and theory can be integrated into clinical practice. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Applying motor-control theory to this case led to the development of clinical questions for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207