Impact of Selective Posterior Rhizotomy on Fine Motor Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suprasegmental effects following selective posterior rhizotomy have been frequently reported. However, few studies have used validated functional outcome measures to report the surgical results beyond 3 years. The authors analyzed data obtained from the McGill Rhizotomy Database to determine the long-term impact of lumbosacral dorsal rhizotomy on fine motor skills. The study population comprised children with debilitating spasticity who underwent SPR and were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team preoperatively, at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Quantitative standardized assessments of upper extremity function were obtained using the fine motor skills section of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMS) test. Of 70 patients who met the entry criteria for the study, 45 and 25 completed the 3- and 5-year assessments, respectively. Statistical analysis demonstrated significant improvements in grasping, hand use, eye-hand coordination, and manual dexterity at 1 year after SPR. More importantly, all improvements were maintained at 3 and 5 years following SPR. This study supports that significant improvements in upper extremity fine motor function using the PDMS evaluative measure are present after SPR and that these suprasegmental benefits are durable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".