Physical activity in young children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the physical activity levels of 5- and 7-year-old children with cerebral palsy (CP, n = 97), to compare their physical activity levels with those of typically developing peers (TD, n = 57) and the Dutch recommendation for physical activity, and to investigate the associated factors. METHOD: The level of physical activity (hours spent on sports and physical activity per week) and contextual factors were assessed with standardised questionnaires. RESULTS: Mean duration of self-reported physical activity for children with CP was 3.4 (+/- 1.9) h/week, which was significantly less than the 5.8 (+/- 2.3) h/week for TD-peers. Ninety-three percent of the children with CP were insufficiently physically active according to the Dutch recommendation for physical activity. Multiple regression analyses showed that younger age and lower educational level of the mother were significantly associated with lower levels of physical activity for children with CP, while severity of CP was not associated with physical activity levels. Twenty-two percent of the parents reported that more facilities in sport and games are required for children with CP. CONCLUSION: Physical activity is low in young children with CP and needs to be promoted at an early stage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".