MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121594079 · doi:10.1017/s0012162206002106

Do the abilities of children with cerebral palsy explain their activities and participation?

2006· article· en· W2121594079 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Morris, Jennifer J. Kurinczuk, Ray Fitzpatrick, Peter Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyGross Motor Function Classification SystemPsychologyPopulationMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to use family-assessed instruments and details of children's impairments to explore factors affecting the activities and participation of children with cerebral palsy (CP). A postal survey was conducted with families of a geographically defined population of children with CP aged 6 to 12 years. Family-assessed indices of children's activities and participation were the Activities Scale for Kids (ASK) and Lifestyle Assessment Questionnaire (LAQ-CP). Families also assessed children's abilities using the Gross Motor Function and Manual Ability Classification Systems (GMFCS; MACS). Details of children's impairments were available from the 4Child epidemiological database and used with the GMFCS and MACS as explanatory variables in multiple regression analyses to identify their effect on children's activities and participation. Families of 175/314 (56%) children returned an assessment using the GMFCS and 129 (41%) children participated fully by returning all the questionnaires. Full participants (72 males, 57 females) did not differ from those who did not take part by their age, sex, CP characteristics, or associated impairments: GMFCS Level I-25, Level II-43, Level III-15, Level IV-14, Level V-23; MACS Level I-14, Level II-30, Level III-18, Level IV-13, Level V-13. Scores for the ASK and LAQ-CP Physical Independence and Mobility domains were predicted well by children's movement, manual, and intellectual disability, and also, to some extent, by the presence of seizures or speech problems. LAQ-CP domains for Economic and Clinical Burden and Social Integration were not well explained by children's abilities and impairments. Family assessment, therefore, offers a useful method for measuring children's activities and participation; however, currently available instruments do not fully represent all the domains in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Children's abilities only partially explain their activities and participation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations108
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207