MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068620558 · doi:10.3109/17518420903357753

Virtual reality as a therapeutic modality for children with cerebral palsy

2010· review· en· W2068620558 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurie Snider, Annette Majnemer, Vasiliki Darsaklis

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsCerebral palsyVirtual realityPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationModality (human–computer interaction)Quality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychotherapistPsychiatryHuman–computer interactionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The evidence for using virtual reality (VR) with children with cerebral palsy (CP) was examined. METHODS: A search of 13 electronic databases identified all types of studies examining VR as an intervention for children with CP. The most recent article included was published in October 2008. For each study, the quality of the methods was assessed using the appropriate scale. A total of 19 articles were retrieved. Thirteen studies from 11 articles were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Outcomes documented brain reorganization/plasticity, motor capacity, visual-perceptual skills, social participation and personal factors. Two studies were randomized controlled trials. These reported conflicting results regarding motor outcomes. Twelve of the 13 studies presented positive outcomes in at least one domain. CONCLUSIONS: VR has potential benefits for children with CP. However, the current level of evidence is poor and empirical data is lacking. Future methodologically rigorous studies are required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations213
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207