The first meta‐analysis of randomized controlled surgical trials in cerebral palsy (2002)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a comparative analysis and meta-analysis of three randomized clinical trials. Children with spastic diplegia received either 'selective' dorsal rhizotomy (SDR) plus physiotherapy (SDR+PT) or PT without SDR (PT-only). Common outcome measures were used for spasticity (Ashworth scale) and function (Gross Motor Function Measure [GMFM]). Baseline and 9- to 12-month outcome data were pooled (n=90). At baseline, 82 children were under 8 years old and 65 had Gross Motor Function Classification System level II or III disability. Pooled Ashworth data analysis confirmed a reduction of spasticity with SDR+PT (mean change score difference -1.2; Wilcoxon p<0.001). Pooled GMFM data revealed greater functional improvement with SDR+PT (difference in change score +4.0, p=0.008). Multivariate analysis in the SDR+PT group revealed a direct relationship between percentage of dorsal root tissue transected and functional improvement. SDR+PT is efficacious in reducing spasticity in children with spastic diplegia and has a small positive effect on gross motor function.
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 | 0.026 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".