Assessing functional differences in gross motor skills in children with cerebral palsy who use an ambulatory aid or orthoses: can the GMFM-88 help?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88) is sensitive to within-child changes in function as a result of children who use an ambulatory aid or orthoses in comparison with unaided or barefoot function. Data from 257 children (140 males, 117 females) with cerebral palsy (CP) were analyzed from a 5-year longitudinal study. The children's age ranged from 2 to 15 years (mean 7y 4mo; SD 2y 11mo), and type of CP, included spastic (n=206 [80.2%1), dyskinetic (n=13 [5.1%]), ataxic (n=9 [3.5%]), hypotonic or mixed (n=27 [10.5%]), and those missing (n=2 [0.8%]), and in motor ability (Gross Motor Function Classification System [GMFCS] levels I, n=40, II, n=34, m, n=93, IV, n=76, and V, n=14). Paired t-tests between barefoot and aided assessments showed significantly higher GMFM-88 total scores overall (n=257) for aided assessment and for three subgroups (ankle-foot orthoses only, ambulatory aid only, ankle-foot orthoses plus ambulatory aid), providing evidence that the GMFM-88 is sensitive to functional changes as a result of using an aid and/or orthoses. With regard to changes within the orthoses-only group, significant changes varied by GMFCS level. The GMFM-88 might provide a clinically useful tool to help in understanding the impact of ambulatory aids and orthoses on gross motor skills of 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".