MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109873258 · doi:10.1080/17518420802581164

Association between motor and mental functioning in toddlers with cerebral palsy

2008· article· en· W2109873258 on OpenAlexaff
L. Enkelaar, Marjolijn Ketelaar, Jan Willem Gorter

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyAssociation (psychology)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotor skillDevelopmental psychologyMedicineAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the association between motor and mental functioning in toddlers with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: The Mental and Motor Scales of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Second Edition (BSID-II) were administered. SUBJECTS: Seventy-eight toddlers with CP (mean age 2 years 7 months, SD 1 month; 43 boys, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I-V). RESULTS: Spearman correlation coefficient between mental and motor functioning was 0.67 (p < 0.01). Sixty-five percent (51/78) of the children performed at the same level in mental and motor functioning, of whom 36 performed significantly delayed and 15 within normal limits. Thirty-five percent of the children were more delayed in motor functioning than in mental functioning. CONCLUSION: In toddlers with CP, an association was found between mental and motor functioning. When motor and mental functioning did not develop synchronously, it was always in favour of mental functioning. This study emphasizes the importance of examining both mental functioning and motor functioning separately of pre-school children with CP.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207