Effects of a Wheelchair-Mounted Rigid Pelvic Stabilizer on Caregiver Assistance for Children with Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A within-subjects repeated measures (A1, B, A2) design was used to study the impact of a rigid pelvic stabilizer (RPS) compared with a traditional lap belt on the caregiver assistance requirements of six children with cerebral palsy as they completed functional tasks from their wheelchair seating system. Study participants wore a lap belt during the 3-week baseline phases (A1 and A2). The RPS was used during the 5-week intervention phase (B). At baseline, each child and parent identified five bimanual or reaching tasks with which the child had difficulty. Using a six-point scale, each parent (caregiver) rated the degree of assistance the child required to do each task. Parents also maintained a log, recording how many times the child was repositioned daily. The RPS appeared to impact directly on reducing caregiver assistance for 30% of the tasks, as the need for assistance was less during phase B when the RPS was used and was greater during phases A1 and A2 when the lap belt was worn. Five children required repositioning less often during phase B than during the A phases. The RPS reduced the child's need for caregiver assistance for some bimanual and reaching tasks as well as for repositioning.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".