Comparison of Structured Skill and Unstructured Practice During Intensive Bimanual Training in Children With Unilateral Spastic Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Background High-intensity training aims to improve hand function in children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy (USCP). However, the extent to which skill training is required is not known. Objectives To compare the effects of intensive bimanual training with and without structured progression of skill difficulty, on manual dexterity, bimanual hand use, daily functioning, and functional goals in children with USCP. Method Twenty-two children were randomized to structured practice group (SPG) or unstructured practice group (UPG), and received 6 h/d training during 15 days. Children from the SPG were engaged in fine and gross motor bimanual activities, with skill progression and goal training. Children from UPG performed the same activities without skill progression or goal training. Participants were evaluated before, immediately and 6 months after training by a physical therapist blinded to group allocation. The primary outcomes were the Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function (JTTHF) and Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA). Secondary outcomes included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI), and ABILHAND-Kids. Results Both groups showed similar improvements in the JTTHF, AHA, ABILHAND-Kids, COPM-satisfaction, and PEDI (P < .05). A significant interaction in the COPM-performance scale (P = .03) showed superior improvements of the SPG immediately, but not 6 months, after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Children from both groups demonstrated improvements in dexterity and functional hand use. This suggests that for intensive bimanual approaches, intensive training at such high doses may not require structured practice to elicit improvements. However, there may be immediate added benefit of including goal training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".