MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055205566 · doi:10.1177/0883073813495306

Botulinum Toxin Type A in Children and Adolescents With Severe Cerebral Palsy

2013· article· en· W2055205566 on OpenAlexafffund
Ronit Mesterman, Jan Willem Gorter, Adrienne Harvey, Julia Lockhart, Jenny McEwen-Hill, Karen Margallo, Nancy Goldie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster Children's Hospital
FundersHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsCerebral palsyToiletingMedicineGross Motor Function Classification SystemBotulinum toxinPediatricsRetrospective cohort studyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaSurgeryActivities of daily living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This retrospective cohort study reviewed set goals and their outcomes of children and adolescents with severe cerebral palsy who received botulinum toxin A in 2008 and 2009. Sixty children (36 male, mean age 9 years) were included. They received on average 4 (range 1-7) treatments, with the dosage varying between 20 and 400 units per treatment (3-21 U/kg/body weight). Mild transient side effects were reported in 12 of 242 treatments with botulinum toxin A. Treatment goals were related to lower limb function (82%), range of motion (68%), positioning (33%), upper limb function (33%), and facilitating ease of care in dressing (30%), toileting, and diapering (22%). The treatment goals were reached in 60% to 85% by report of the parent and child dyad. Our findings suggest that botulinum toxin A should be considered as a treatment option in patients with cerebral palsy within Gross Motor Function Classification System levels IV and V.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207