MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091730724 · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2011.18.6.336

Associated movement reduction training for children with developmental coordination disorder: a pilot trial

2011· article· en· W2091730724 on OpenAlexaff
Motohide Miyahara, Natalie Ginther Schreiber, Clare Green

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitReduction (mathematics)Intervention (counseling)Physical therapyPsychologyMovement (music)MedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: Associated movements (AMs) are an indicator of poor movement quality, and are prevalent in children with motor impairment. The ability of children to inhibit AMs has been demonstrated in the hands, but the possibility of reducing AMs that involve both the upper and lower limbs has not been investigated. The aims of this study were to explore the possibility of reducing the AMs and to examine if the reduction of the AMs impacts on locomotion. Methods: An AM reduction intervention under stress gait conditions was piloted in nine children with developmental coordination disorder. A single-case alternating treatment design was used to evaluate the intervention effects of AM reduction training (experimental treatment) and strength training (control treatment) on the AMs under stress gait and running form, over a period of six months. Findings: Visual inspection of individual time-series plots from four children with intact data revealed a reduction of AMs, but the effect was temporary in two cases. The reduction of AMs did not coincide with the improvement of running form. Conclusions: This study highlighted the possibility of reducing AMs under stress gait, and indicated that the reduction of AMs did not improve the movement quality of running form.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207