MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043175228 · doi:10.1080/1363849021000039326

The effectiveness of constraint induced movement therapy in two young children with hemiplegia

2002· article· en· W2043175228 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Rehabilitation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint-induced movement therapyIntervention (counseling)Physical medicine and rehabilitationUpper limbPhysical therapyMedicineConstraint (computer-aided design)Stroke (engine)PsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constraint induced movement therapy (CIMT) for hemiplegia involves constraining use of the unaffected limb while providing intensive shaping and practice of movements in the hemiplegic limb. The technique had been shown to be highly effective in improving upper limb function in adults following stroke, but there is only a limited literature on the use of this intervention in children. This paper provides a brief overview of the theory and background of this procedure, and reviews the literature on use of the technique in children. It then provides detailed case reports for two hemiplegic children, ages 19 and 38 months, each of whom underwent a trial of CIMT. Both children made significant gains in upper arm function that were reflected in a variety of domains, including aspects of everyday functional limb use. Gains persisted to variable degrees and some unexpected new gains were noted following cessation of CIMT. Practical challenges for the children, parents, and therapists in implementing this intensive but promising intervention are also discussed.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · 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