MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073126551 · doi:10.1080/02699050110103283

The vegetative and minimally conscious states in children: spasticity, muscle contracture and issues for physiotherapy treatment

2002· review· en· W2073126551 on OpenAlexaff
Bentley Leong

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsSunny Hill Health Centre for Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpasticityMuscle toneMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationContractureNeuropathologyPhysical therapyMinimally conscious statePsychological interventionPsychologySurgeryNursingNeuroscienceDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neuropathology of the vegetative (VS) and minimally conscious (MCS) states and the pathophysiology of spasticity are reviewed. Current treatment options available in the physical management of children in a low-level state and factors influencing the physiotherapy treatment of children in a low-level state will be discussed. The complex neuropathology of VS and MCS helps to explain the varied clinical presentations of children in VS and MCS. Spasticity and muscle contracture are common motor sequelae of VS and MCS. Loss of inhibition by descending motor pathways is thought to result in increased muscle tone or spasticity. However, secondary changes in muscle fibre structure and periarticular connective tissue may be an additional component to increased muscle tone. A multimodal approach combining physical, pharmacological and surgical interventions is likely to be the most effective. Knowledge of the likelihood of recovery from VS and MCS can be helpful in determining the frequency and intensity of physiotherapy. Ethical issues in the management of children in a low-level state include a consideration of the benefits to the child and the child's family and the costs to the health care team and the medical institution.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207