MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104430402 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20060089

Performance of Physical Activities by Adolescents With Cerebral Palsy

2007· article· en· W2104430402 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Palisano, Wendy P Copeland, Barbara Galuppi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyGross Motor Function Classification SystemPhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical therapistAnalysis of variancePost-hoc analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Mobility and self-care are important considerations for successful transition of adolescents with cerebral palsy to adulthood. The purpose of this study was to characterize performance of physical activities from the perspective of adolescents themselves. SUBJECTS: The subjects were 156 adolescents with cerebral palsy, 11.6 to 17.7 years of age. METHODS: A therapist completed the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). Adolescents completed the Activities Scale for Kids-Performance Version (ASKp) twice over a 1-year period. RESULTS: A repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated a main effect for GMFCS level. The main effect for time and the GMFCS level x time interaction were not significant. Post hoc comparisons indicated that ASKp scores differed among all GMFCS levels. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Performance of physical activities by adolescents with cerebral palsy differed based on GMFCS level and did not change over 1 year. The ASKp scores of adolescents in levels II through V suggest the need for physical assistance at times throughout the day. The results have implications for the role of the physical therapist in transition planning.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations81
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207