MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088561776 · doi:10.1177/0883073812461942

Behavioral Difficulties in Adolescents With Cerebral Palsy

2012· article· en· W2088561776 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie Brossard‐Racine, Joey Waknin, Keiko Shikako‐Thomas, Michael Shevell, Chantal Poulin, Lucyna Lach, Mary Law, Norbert Schmitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
KeywordsCerebral palsyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral problems are common in children with cerebral palsy; however, little is known about the persistence of these difficulties during adolescence. This study aimed to describe the nature and frequency of behavioral difficulties in adolescents with cerebral palsy and to explore associated factors. Parents of the participants completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Participants' motor and cognitive abilities, functional status, as well as parental stress were evaluated. Overall, the study enrolled 160 adolescents with cerebral palsy (65 girls, mean age 15.4 ± 2.17 years). Behavioral difficulties were present in 36.9% of the adolescents, with peer problems the most frequently reported (61.9%). Prosocial behaviors were associated with better function (r = 0.24-0.65) whereas hyperactive symptoms were associated with greater limitations (r = -0.19 to -0.55). Weak associations were found between parental stress and externalized problems (r = 0.22-0.24). Behavioral difficulties remained frequent in adolescents with cerebral palsy, particularly in those with greater functional limitations.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207