A systematic review of the effectiveness of aerobic exercise interventions for children with cerebral palsy: an AACPDM evidence report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review was to assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of aerobic training interventions for children with cerebral palsy (CP). The target population included children with CP of any severity, aged 2 to 17 years. The following databases were searched for English language studies from 1960 to 2006: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Pascal, Cochrane Library, CSA Neuroscience Abstracts, The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Sport Discus. Search terms included 'cerebral palsy', 'athetoid', 'ataxic', 'spastic diplegia', 'hemiplegia', 'quadriplegia', 'aerobic', 'exercise', 'training', 'physical activity', 'aquatic/water/pool therapy', and 'continuous exercise'. The American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine systematic review guidelines were used to format the review. One thousand, four hundred and eighty nine articles were identified and examined for the stated inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirteen articles met the criteria for inclusion. The evidence suggests that aerobic exercise with children with CP can improve physiological outcomes, but the influence of these changes on outcomes representing activity and participation are unknown. Future research needs improved methodological rigour in order to determine a specific set of exercise guidelines and safety considerations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".