MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adults with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy: a mapping review of long-term outcomes

2011· review· en· W2045755404 on OpenAlexaff
Gayatri Kembhavi, Johanna Darrah, KELSEY PAYNE, DEVON PLESUK

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesAlberta Bible CollegeAlberta Crop Industry Development FundQuest University CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthTerminologyMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyGerontologyPediatricsPhysical therapyRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Cerebral palsy (CP) is recognized as a lifespan condition. This mapping review identifies outcomes that have been measured in adults with CP between 1970 and 2010 to determine if either the outcomes evaluated or the research methodologies have changed substantially. METHOD: We performed a literature review. For studies to be included, participants had to be 16 years or older and 80% of the sample had to have a diagnosis of CP. Articles were grouped by decade, and outcomes were categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework and terminology. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles were included in the mapping review. Both the number of studies and the types of outcomes investigated increased from 1970 to 2010. Outcomes representing the ICF component of Body Function and Structure were present across the period reviewed, whereas interest in contextual (personal or environmental) factors has primarily emerged since 2000. INTERPRETATION: Gaps were identified by the mapping review. Large age ranges and heterogeneity of sample populations made it difficult to determine if the outcomes reported were due to ageing or the long-term consequences of CP. In addition, most reviewed articles described outcomes categorically, with few papers providing explanations or solutions to reported outcomes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207